AHMEDABAD VICTORIA IRON WORKS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The respondent No. 3 the Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), moved the State Government for acquisition of land and the State Government, as it appears from the petition, issued a notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). After following the procedure, the respondent No. 2 - Special Land Acquisition Officer, passed an award on 9-5-1967 acquiring the land of final plot No. 100/C, admeasuring 87 sq.yds. and 1 sq.ft. There is no dispute about acquisition of land, and hence, we do not discuss that aspect.

(2.) Petitioner, the then owner of the land, has approached this Court making a grievance that the land was acquired for a public purpose and without the prior permission of the State Government, the land acquired under the Act cannot be used for any other public purpose. Yet in the instant case, the land is being used for other then a public purpose. The petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 3 - Corporation is contemplating to regularise the unauthorised occupants of the said land, and hence, filed a petition in this Court, inter alia, praying to declare the entire acquisition proceedings pursuant to the notification issued under Sec. 4 bearing No. AM. 1100/M/LAH 1364/99235-A, dated 23-9-1964 published in the Gujarat Government Gazette dated 15-10-1964 are bad, illegal and against the policy and to quash the said notification and to direct the respondents to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the land to the petitioner.

(3.) The survey number under notification was acquired for widening the road. It appears that the Ex-Councillor of the respondent No. 3 - Corporation submitted an application for allotting him a place for business. 15 persons submitted their demand for the land in question and Estate Management Committee by resolution No. 98 on 22-12-1983 forwarded proposal for allotment of the land to the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee, by passing a resolution No. 2763 dated 9- 2-1984, without considering the remarks of the Commissioner approved the resolution of the Estate Committee subject to approval by General Board. General Board, on 24-7-1984, approved the same. Before such resolution the Commissioner through Secretary pointed out vide letter dated 18-5-1983, Annexure-II, that the Ex-Municipal Councillor has requested a piece of land for business on the ground that his young son is unemployed and he is facing crisis. He pointed out a case to whom the land was allotted as a special case in past. It was pointed out by the Commissioner that by indicating one or the other reasons, recommendations are made and by indicating such examples, it is stated that if the lands are allotted, then there will be no end of the matter. It was also pointed out that such persons are demanding for the lands which are the lands of prime location of a locality. He also pointed out that this causes hindrance or obstruction. Intention in the letter is to the effect that though alternative place is not offered, questions are raised at a later stage to allot place alternatively and thereafter, proceedings are initiated in a Court, if not allotted. It is also indicated that such persons are giving stall, etc. allocated to them to others as sub-tenants. It was indicated that question of allotment of site to 1,500 shopkeepers is pending. Such open space cannot be permitted to be occupied. It seems that the opinion of the Commissioner has not been taken into consideration.