CHIMANBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL & Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has raised an issue of the Railway authorities trying to take possession of the house for which no acquisition proceedings have been undertaken. It is not necessary to go into the detailed history of the acquisition for the purpose of limited controversy in the present petition. Briefly stated, the Railway authorities required certain lands along with some of them with superstructure for the purpose of execution of a Railway project. It is not in dispute that land bearing survey No.367/p was part of such acquisition. Such land had a house which belonged to the petitioner. The petitioner has also been paid compensation for loss of superstructure. According to the petitioner, the Railway authorities have already taken over the possession of the land and the superstructure and the superstructure has already been demolished. Despite this, the petitioner received notice dated 20.08.2016, conveying that the authorities proposed to take possession of the house situated in survey No.364/p1. The petitioner objected to such proposal, pointing out that he does not own any house situated on such land area. He further pointed out that he owns another house besides one which has already been demolished, which is situated in survey No.363/p1 which is not under acquisition at all. The Railway authorities thereupon issued yet another notice dated 23.11.2016 in which there was no mention of any survey number or house number.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner had previously pointed out that the petitioner was owner of house situated in survey No.367/p which bear house number 677, which has already been demolished by the Railway authorities after taking possession. The petitioner owns yet another house situated on survey No.363/p1 bearing house No.677. The Railway authorities are threatening to dispossess the petitioner from such house without any acquisition. In view of such confusion, we had requested the Deputy Collector, Navsari under our order dated 01.11.2017 to clarify these issues. Pursuant to such order, the said authority filed an affidavit dated 14.11.2017, in which he stated thus:-

(3.) Both sides thus agree that the petitioner is not the owner of either land bearing survey No.364/p1 or the superstructure situated thereon. There is also agreement that land bearing survey No.363/p1 along with superstructure is not under acquisition. That being the position, it clearly emerges that the Railway authorities cannot seek possession of either land or the superstructure situated on survey No.363/p1 from the petitioner. Railway Counsel however submitted that superstructure on survey N.367/p is still standing and it is this superstructure which the authorities seek to demolish after dispossessing the petitioner.