KAMUBEN Vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, Mr. Jivrajbhai Mohanbhai Vaddoriya, who is the Power of Attorney holder of the petitioners, residing at village: Bhestan, Taluka: Choryasi, District: Surat, has prayed to set aside the entire procedure undertaken by the authorities for disposing of the acquired lands of the petitioners on the pretext that it is proposed to set up High Tech Textile park. The Power of Attorney holder has further prayed to direct the authorities to utilize the lands of the petitioners for the purpose for which they were acquired and in the alternative to direct the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for allocation of the lands to them in lieu of return of compensation received by them.

(2.) As all the petitions involve determination of common questions of facts and law, this Court proposes to dispose them of by this common judgment. The record shows that the petitioners were the owners of Survey Nos. 107, 108 and part of Survey No. 109, situated at village Bhestan, Taluka: Choryasi, District: Surat. A proposal was received by the State Government to acquire the lands of the petitioners as well as other lands situated at village Bhestan for the public purpose of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC for short). On perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Bhestan mentioned therein were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, a Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act for short) was issued which was published in the official gazette on June 17, 1976. Thereafter, necessary inquiry was made under Section 5A of the Act and report, as contemplated by Section 5A(2) of the Act, was forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the State Government. On the basis of the said report, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was published in the official gazette on April 20, 1977. The interested persons were thereafter served with notices for determination of compensation payable to them and award under Section 11 of the Act was made on January 3, 1978. It may be mentioned that the possession of the lands acquired was handed over to the acquiring body pursuant to different agreements which were executed between the owners of the lands and the officer of the acquiring body on December 18, 1975. The fact that the possession of the lands acquired was handed over to the acquiring body on December 18, 1975, is also evident from the contents of the document produced at Annexure-C to the petition. The record shows that the amount of compensation determined as payable was received by the petitioners.

(3.) The petitioners have claimed that the lands acquired were never used for the public purpose for which they were acquired and had remained unutilized till 2005. According to the petitioners, the original owners had addressed a communication dated November 22, 2005, to the Special Land Acquisition Officer requesting him to hand over the possession of the lands acquired to them as the lands acquired were not utilized for the purpose for which they were acquired. The petitioners have stated that as no reply was received from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, another communication dated January 3, 2006, was addressed by the petitioners to the Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department, Gandhinagar, with a request to hand over possession of the lands acquired to them as they were not used by the GIDC. The grievance made by the petitioners in the petition is that the GIDC had thereafter proposed to set-up High Tech Park and plots were allotted from the lands acquired to different persons as is indicated on page 109 of the compilation, which is illegal. The petitioners have claimed that no permission of the State Government as envisaged under Section 17A of the Act was obtained by GIDC before effecting change in use of the lands acquired nor the purpose of setting up of High Tech Park can be said to be a public purpose and therefore, disposal of the plots by the respondents to the persons whose names are indicated in communication which is at page 109 of the compilation should be regarded as illegal. What is claimed by the petitioners is that the plots were disposed of without obtaining prior sanction of the Government and therefore, the respondents should be directed to re-allocate the lands to the petitioners in lieu of return of the compensation received by them. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have filed the instant petition and claimed the reliefs to which reference is made earlier.