RAMLAL MOTILAL SHETH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .This petition is filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the acquisition of lands bearing survey Nos. 90, 91, 92 and 93/1 of village Hansol (New Survey Nos. 4/1, 5, 6 & 7), now within limits of Ahmedabad City and further for directing the respondents not to dispossess the petitioner from the above lands and in the alternative for directing the respondents to pay compensation for the lands in question.

(2.) . Tenor of the petition indicates that the lands in question were not acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act yet the respondent No. 1 authority is trying to interfere with the possession of the lands. It is averred in the petition that no compensation has been paid to the petitioner. It is averred that for the first time, the officers of the respondent No. 2 authority approached the petitioner and tried to take the possession of the lands belonging to the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner approached Ahmedabad City Civil Court, by filing a Civil Suit No. 3138 of 1991 praying for ad-interim relief which was granted and ultimately came to be vacated on 24-3-1992. It is also stated that Appeal from Order came to be filed and has been disposed of on 2-2-1996.

(3.) . We questioned as to if an Appeal from Order is filed, how this petition is preferred by the petitioner ? We were told at the Bar that the Court has permitted the petitioner to move the appropriate Court for taking action in accordance with law and therefore, the present petition is preferred. Alongwith the petition, titles of Arbitration cases filed before the Assistant Judge has been produced with a view to indicate that if the petitioner's lands have been acquired, there would be his case also. There are village forms No. VII/XII indicating the name of the petitioner and that the lands have been acquired. We thought it necessary to have some other material on record of the case. Mr. Oza at the relevant time stated that his client knows only that his lands though not acquired in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, he is sought to be dispossessed. He stated that the petitioner has made averments on oath and he should be protected. Mr. Oza was given an opportunity to place on record form No. 6 wherein the reasons for change of ownership are noted by the revenue authority, but he could not produce the same. Ultimately, by an order dated 23-4-1996, we called upon the Talati and the Mamlatdar to remain present before the Court with form No. 6 in connection with lands which are alleged to have been transferred in the name of Civil Aerodromerespondent No. 2 herein. This was only with a view to see that the lands have been transferred or not and for no other purpose. In this case, the petitioner through his power of attorney has stated on oath and the learned Advocate for the petitioner also made a statement that the lands are of the petitioner and without following the procedure for acquisition and compensation, he is likely to be dispossessed.