BHUPATSINH VITTHALBHAI VASAVA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the acquisition of his land has lapsed by virtue of Sec. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ('the Act of 2013' for short). In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the authorities to withdraw from the acquisition of the land in question.

(2.) Brief facts are as under: The petitioner is a successor in title along with other co-owners of land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 156/1 and 156/2 of Village Vadia, Tal. Nanod, Dist. Bharuch. Such land was required by the State for the public purpose of constructing a guest house. For acquiring such land, notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act of 1894' for short) was issued on 23.03.1983. After following the required procedure, Special Land Acquisition Officer passed his award dated 27.07.1984. The case of the petitioner is that, having acquired such land, the authorities never constructed the guest house at the said site and thus, many years after the acquisition, the land, even today, remains open unused land. The petitioner contends that by virtue of Sec. 24(2) of the Act of 2013, such acquisition lapse. According to the petitioner, compensation for the land in question was never paid nor received by the owners. Though fleetingly referred to in the writ petition that the possession was also not taken over, at the time of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions to the question of payment of compensation.

(3.) In the context of the alternative prayer made by the petitioner it was submitted that, the land having remained unused for decades together, the Government should be directed to return the same to the original land owners. However, realising the limitation of such a contention, in view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in case of V. Chandrasekaran and anr Vs. Administrative Officer and ors., reported in (2012) 12 SCC 133 and other similar judicial pronouncements, counsel for the petitioner made detailed submissions only with respect to the non-payment of compensation.