PRATAPSANG NARANJI JADEJA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The fourth rcspondent a Public Limited Company requested the State Government to acquire certain lands for the purpose of a housing Colony for its employees and steps were initiated for the acquisition of lands belonging to the petitioners herein. The petitioners are agriculturists having landed properties in village Moti Khavadi comprising survey Nos. 43 paiki and 224. The petitioners have alleged that the lands sought to be acquired are agricultural lands having high potential value and if their lands are acquired, the petitioners would be denied of their only source of earning. The petitioners came to know of Sec. 4 notification published and they filed objections on 3rd April, 1996, wherein they contended that the State Government had not followed the procedure prescribed under Secs. 39, 40, 41 and 42 of the Land Acquisition Act and also under Rules 3 & 4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963. According to the petitioners, no inquiry was conducted by the authorities under Sec. 40 of the Land Acquisition Act and the objection raised by the petitioners that alternative lands were available was not considered by the authorities. The petitioners have also contended that if these lands are acquired, it would completely destory Marine National Park along with its valuable flora and fauna. The petitioners have alleged that the Land Acquisition Officer had not given a fair hearing to the petitioners and the objections raised by them were not properly considered and that the authorities failed to comply with the provisions contained in Sec. 39 of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners contend that there is serious violation of procedure laid down under Part-VII of the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to quash the notifications issued under Secs. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act.

(2.) An Under Secretary to Revenue Department has sworn to an affidavit denying the allegations contained in the petition. It is contended that the objections raised by the petitioners were fully considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and the petitioners were given sufficient notice regarding inquiry under Rule-4 of the Land Acquisition (Companies) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter mentioned as "Rules"). It is contended that there was no violation of Sec. 39 of the Land Acquisition Act as alleged by the petitioners in view of Central Amendment by Act No. 68/1984. The allegations regarding violation of Environment Protection Act are denied in the affidavit.

(3.) A Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) has also sworn to an affidavit denying the allegations made in the Special Civil Application. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioners were served with notices and they filed objections. The notices were published in his Office as well as in the Office of Gram Panchayat. All the petitioners were given notices to file their objections on or before 6.4.1996 and personal hearing was afforded to them on 10.4.1996. On 10.4.1996, two land owners had remained present. The inquiry contemplated under Rule-4 was held and the report was submitted to the Government on 2.1.1996. The Company had also sent letters to the land owners on 15.9.1994 informing land owners to remain present at the Company's Office. All the petitioners were not present and only two land owners were present and they demanded that Rs. 2 lacs per Bigha must be paid to them. The Company had offered Rs. 17,500/- per Bigha for Jirayat land and Rs. 35,000/- per Bigha for Bagayat land. It is stated that demand made by the land holders for Rs. 2 lacs per Bigha was highly excessive. Availability of alternative land was also considered. The market value of the land in question was ascertained having regard to Secs. 23 & 24 of the Act. The Company had offered reasonable price for land to the land owners. The allegations and contentions raised in the affidavits-in-reply are denied in the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioners. The statements made in the affidavits are denied and the petitioners have reiterated that they were not given effective participation in the inquiry held by the Collector.