LAVAR AMBARAM MAGANBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE . Ms.Krina P.Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. Having regard to the facts of the case, the petition is heard today.

(2.) BY filing the instant petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order to set aside the order dated February 14, 2006 passed by Mr.B.A.Asari, Special Land Acquisition Officer, (Narmada Yojna), Unit -8, Palanpur, by which the application submitted by the petitioner on October 1, 2001 under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) is rejected as barred by time prescribed by law.

(3.) THE petitioner is a resident of village Orumana, Taluka : Sami, District : Patan. He was owner of Survey No.371 situated at village Orumana. A proposal was received by the Government to acquire certain lands of village Orumana, including the land of the petitioner, for the public purpose of construction of Bilera Branch Canal under Narmada Project. On perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the land of the petitioner and other lands of village Orumana specified in the proposal were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on July 2, 1992. On the basis of the report submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 5A(2) of the Act, the declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made, which was published in the Official Gazette on January 4, 1993. The interested persons were thereafter served with notices for determination of the amount of compensation payable to them. Accordingly, the claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.20/ - per sq.mt. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his Award dated July 1, 1994 offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 2.40 ps. per sq.mt. for irrigated lands and Rs. 1.60 ps. per sq.mt. for non -irrigated lands. Being dissatisfied with the same, some of the claimants sought references. Accordingly, references were made to the District Court, Mehsana, where they were registered as Land Acquisition Case Nos.955 to 967 of 1996. The learned Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana by his judgment and award dated July 2, 2001 awarded additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 9.60 ps. per sq.mt. and also granted other benefits enumerated therein. A copy of the award passed by the Reference Court is produced by the petitioner at Annexure -B to the petition. As the Court had awarded to the claimants an amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act, the petitioner, who was one of the persons interested in his land covered by the same notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act and was also aggrieved by the award of the Collector, made an application to the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 28A of the Act on October 1, 2001. By filing the said application, the petitioner requested the Special Land Acquisition to redetermine the amount of compensation payable to him on the basis of the award of the Court. A copy of the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 28A of the Act on October 1, 2001 is produced by the petitioner at Annexure -C to the petition. The Special Land Acquisition Officer rejected the said application by an order dated September 9, 2003 on the ground that the application was not accompanied with certified copy of the award rendered by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case Nos.955 to 967 of 1996. A copy of the said order is produced by the petitioner at Annexure -D to the petition. Thereupon, the petitioner invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing Special Civil Application No. 8587 of 2004. The Court allowed the petition by judgment dated April 1, 2005 and issued following directions in operative part of the judgment :