RASIKLAL HARILAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY filing the instant petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, i.e. Mr.Rasiklal Harilal Shah and three others, have prayed to issue a Writ of Certiorari or a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ or order declaring that the action of the respondents in taking over possession of the lands belonging to them and making of an award by the respondent No.2 on May 12, 1997 in Compensation Case No.35 of 1995 with respect to their land are illegal, arbitrary, ultra -ires, de -hors the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short), discriminatory, unjust and not legally binding on the petitioner. In the alternative, the petitioners have prayed to direct the respondent No.2 to consider and take appropriate decision on the application filed by them on February 16, 1998, requiring the respondent No.2 to refer his case to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation payable to him.

(2.) THE petitioners are residents of village Govindpura (Jarod), Taluka: Vaghodia, District: Vadodara. They were the owners of agricultural land bearing Survey No.1188/1 -Paiki admeasuring approximately 4 Hectares, 71 Are and 72 sq.mts. situated at village Govindpura (Jarod). The abovementioned land belonging to the petitioners and other lands of village Govindpura (Jarod) were needed for the public purpose of re -settlement and development of Narmada Project under the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited. Therefore, the respondent No.3, i.e. Sardar Sarovar Rehabilitation Agency entered into private negotiations with the owners / interested persons to get the lands on payment of reasonable price. The record shows that the petitioners and others were persuaded to part with possession of the lands needed and the petitioners had accepted 90% of the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1,48,849/ - determined by the respondent No.3. After the possession of the land was handed over by the owners to the respondent No.3, the Government had issued notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on September 29, 1995, stating that the abovementioned lands with other lands were likely to be needed for the public purpose of re -settlement and development of Narmada Project under Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited. A copy of the said notification is produced by the petitioner at Annexure -A to the petition. The Special Land Acquisition Officer thereafter submitted his report under Section 5 -A(2) of the Act to the State Government on the basis of which declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was published in the official gazette on November 22, 1996. A copy of the declaration made under Section 6 of the Act is produced by the petitioner at Annexure -B to the petition After publication of declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer made consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act on May 12, 1997, a copy of which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure -C to the petition The Special Land Acquisition Officer thereafter addressed a communication dated May 12, 1997 to the Assistant Commissioner, Re -settlement and Rehabilitation, Unit No.3, Vadodara, informing him that the consent award was made on May 12, 1997, and therefore, rest of the 10% of the amount, as mentioned in the award, should be paid to the claimants and receipts should be sent to him. From the averments made in the petition, it is evident that the rest of the 10% of the amount was paid to the concerned claimants, including the petitioners.

(3.) THE case of the petitioners is that the possession of the land belonging to them was taken de -hors the provisions of the Act which is illegal and as the acquisition proceedings commenced only with the publication of notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in the official gazette, the action of taking over of possession of the lands should be treated as illegal. It is mentioned in the petition that the members of the Purchasing Committee constituted by the respondent No.3 had approached the petitioners and made them to understand that as the lands were going to be acquired for Narmada Project, they had no alternative but to surrender the ownership and possession of the land to the Government as a result of which, the petitioners, who were illiterate agriculturists were constrained to believe the same and had delivered the possession of their land to the acquiring body which should be regarded as illegal. According to the petitioners, no notice under Section 9 of the Act was issued to any of the petitioners calling upon to lodge objections regarding the market value to be determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and as the procedure contemplated by Section 9 of the Act was not followed, the award made under Section 11(2) of the Act should be treated as void ab -initio. What is averred by the petitioners is that after the award was made under Section 11(2) of the Act, no notice was given to any of the petitioners, as contemplated by Section 12(2) of the Act, and, therefore, the application filed by them on February 16, 1998, requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the case to the Reference Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation payable to them should have been entertained. The grievance made by the petitioner is that neither the Reference, as contemplated by Section 18 of the Act, is made to the Reference Court, nor decision is taken on the application submitted by them in the year 1998 and as the action of the respondents in not entertaining the said application is illegal, appropriate direction should be given to him to refer the case to the Court for the purpose of determination of compensation payable to them. The petitioners have averred that the action of the respondents in taking over the possession of the land without following the procedure laid down in the Act and the action of the respondents in not referring the matter to the Reference Court for the purpose of determination of the just amount of compensation payable to them are bad in law and therefore, appropriate direction should be issued to them. Under the circumstances, the petitioner has filed the instant petition and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier.