ISMAILBHAI NURBHAI BHADARKA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners claiming to be the heirs and legal representatives of the original land owner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order for the following reliefs.

(2.) The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as follows: 2. 1 That the land bearing revenue survey No.1908 of village Prabhash Patan, Taluka Veraval, District Gir Somnath admeasuring 32375 sq. meter (hereinafter referred to as "land in question") came to be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1894") for the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "GIDC"). That the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 came to be issued and published on 23.07.1975/28.08.1975. Thereafter, the objections were invited and after following due procedure required under Section 5(a) of the Act, 1894, Notification under Section 6 of the Act, 1894 was issued and published on 02.11.1976. That thereafter the owner of the land in question was served with the notice under Section 9 of the Act, 1894. At this stage it is required to be noted that on the record of right name of Shri Ghanchi Noorhasan Bhadarka was shown as occupant of the land and therefore he was given the notice to file his claim. From the award declared it appears that by application dated 21.06.1978 he claimed full compensation amount. It appears that in response to the general notice/public notice, the mother of the petitoners herein - wife of Ghanchi Noorhasan Bhadarka - Bai Fatima, by her applications dated 25.11.1976, 05.10.1977, 10.10.1977 and 15.12.1977 declared that her husband Shri Noorhasan Bhadarka has left her and her 5 children from last 5 years; that he is a man of unbalanced mind and is coming to the village at all. She also stated that the land in question was in her possession till its possession has been taken by the Government. Therefore, she claimed the compensation with respect to the acquired land in question for maintaining herself and her 5 children as her husband has given a pie for the maintenance. That thereafter a consent award came to be passed/declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, the Special Land Acquisition Officer directed to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs. 18,532/per Hectare including the solatium. However, as there was a dispute with respect to the apportionment of the amount of compensation between the original land owner - Ghanchi Noorhasan Bhadarka and his wife Bai Fatima and her children and therefore, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was of the opinion that a reference under Section 30 of the Act, 1894 is required to be made for apportionment of the compensation between them and therefore, while declaring the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, the Special Land Acquisition Officer directed that the reference should accordingly be made under Section 30 to the District Court, Junagadh by depositing full compensation amount in the name of "District Judge, Junagadh". Thus, accordingly, the full amount of compensation has been deposited with the Reference Court - District Court, Junagadh. Thus, the possession of the land in question was already taken over by the State Government/GIDC and even the amount of compensation was deposited with the concerned Reference Court - District Court, Junagadh. It appears that thereafter the acquired land was pleaded in different plots and they also came to be alloted to the concerned allottees. At that stage the GIDC approached the revenue authority to mutate their names in the revenue record on the basis of the acquisition proceedings which were completed in the year 197576 and at that stage the power of attorney holder of the petitioners raised objection against mutation entry on the ground that they are aware about the acquisition of the land and that the amount of compensation has been paid. Simultaneously, vide representation/application dated 20.07.2015, the power of attorney holder of the petitioners approached the Chairman/Managing Director of the GIDC to cancel the allotment and in the alternative to pay the compensation as per the new guidelines alleging inter alia that the land in question has been acquired and that the compensation with respect to the acquired land in question has been paid. That thereafter further representation was made on 21.07.2016. That thereafter vide impugned communication dated 05.03.2016, the power of attorney holder of the petitioners is informed that the land in question has already been acquired under the provisions of the Act, 1894 and for which even the consent award was declared and at the relevant time the Special Land Acquisition Officer has also paid the amount of compensation and even thereafter the plots are alloted, the request cannot be granted. That thereafter the present petitioners claiming to be the heirs and legal representatives of the original land owner have preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the aforesaid reliefs.

(3.) Shri Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioners. Shri R.D. Dave, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 - GIDC and Shri Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 and 3.