DINKARRAI VALLABHRAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. U.A. Trivedi, learned A.G.P. waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. At the joint request of learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is taken-up for final hearing today. By means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside order dated October 14, 1998 passed by the Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition), Surat by which application submitted by the petitioners under section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is rejected on the ground that the petitioners had accepted the offer of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer without protest.

(2.) The petitioners were owners of lands bearing Survey No.146/2 and 241/2 situated at village Kavas, Taluka : Choryashi, District : Surat. It was proposed to acquire lands belonging to the petitioners and others for public purpose of establishing G.I.D.C. Estate. On receipt of the proposal, State Government was satisfied that the lands belonging to the petitioners and others were likely to be needed for the said purpose. Therefore, notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) was published in the Official Gazette on March 18, 1986. The land owners were served with notices, who filed their objections against proposed acquisition. After considering the objections submitted by the owners, Land Acquisition Officer forwarded his report to the State Government as contemplated by section 5-A(2) of the Act. On receipt of the report, State Government was satisfied that lands of the petitioners and others were needed for public purpose of establishing G.I.D.C. Estate. Therefore, declaration under section 6 of the Act was made which was published in the Official Gazette on May 4, 1987. Interested persons were thereafter served with notices for determination of compensation. After considering the materials placed before him, Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated July 5, 1989 offered compensation to the claimants at the rate ranging between Rs. 3.00 to Rs. 7.00 per sq.mt. Some of the claimants were dissatisfied with the offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, by making applications, they required the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court for determination of compensation. Accordingly, references were made to the District Court, Surat which were numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Cases No. 57/89 to 72/89, 83/89 to 115/89, 120/89 to 131/89, 133/89 to 137/89, 1/90 to 7/90, 9/90, 10/90, 13/90 to 25/90, 27/90 to 71/90, 114/90 to 131/90, 147/90, 148/90 and 162/90. The Reference Court by award dated September 30, 1996 determined compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of Rs.20.00 per sq.mt. The award rendered by the Reference Court is produced by the petitioners at Annexure-B to the petition. As the Reference Court had allowed to the claimants amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the Act, the petitioners who were interested in their lands covered by the same notification issued under section 4 of the Act and who were aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, made application to the Special Land Acquisition Officer within three months from the date of the award of the Court requiring Land Acquisition Officer that the amount of compensation payable to them be redetermined on the basis of the amount of compensation awarded by the Court. The application submitted by the petitioners to the Officer on Special Duty (land acquisition) G.I.D.C. is produced by the petitioners at Annexure-A to the petition. The Officer on Special Duty (land acquisition) G.I.D.C., Surat has ordered to file the application submitted by the petitioners vide communication dated October 14, 1988 on the ground that the petitioners had accepted the award of Land Acquisition Officer without protest, giving rise to the present petition. The communication dated October 14, 1988 addressed by the Officer on Special Duty (land acquisition) GIDC, Surat is produced by the petitioners at Annexure-F to the petition.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent no.2 committed an error in interpreting Section 28A of the Act and, therefore, order dated October 14, 1988 produced at Annexure-F to the petition deserves to be set aside. It was pleaded that the Court had allowed to the claimants an amount of compensation in excess of the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the Act and as the petitioners were interested in their lands which were covered by the same notification under section 4(1) of the Act and as the petitioners were aggrieved by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, they were entitled to make an application to the Land Acquisition Officer requiring him to redetermine compensation payable to the petitioners on the basis of amount of compensation awarded by the Court and, therefore, the application submitted by the petitioners should not have been ordered to have been filed by the respondent no.2. What was claimed was that the impugned order is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in BABUA RAM AND OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER, (1995)2 S.C.C. 689 and, therefore, the prayer made in the petition should be granted.