PRERAK RAKESHBHAI DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the action of the Special Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to as "lao") of (i) disbursing, in favour of an alleged legatee Mr. Jayantibhai R. Patel compensation amount of about Rs. 27. 29 crores (about Rs. 19. 23 crores as ad-hoc payment made even before the award and about Rs. 8. 06 crores paid after the award under section 11) out of total compensation of about Rs. 33. 33 crores determined by the LAO under section 11 on the basis of a disputed will allegedly signed by deceased Mr. Mahendrakumar P. Desai; and also (ii) upon being aggrieved by L. A. O's action of ignoring (a) the requests and demand by the deceased's heirs and legal representatives (L. R. s for short) for reference under section 30 read with section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and (b) the fact that the so called MOU-settlement between the alleged legatee Mr. Jayantibhai R. Patel and some of the heirs is under challenge in a civil suit filed by some of the other heirs of the deceased Mr. Mahendrakumar P. Desai, the two petitions have been preferred alleging inter alia, that the alleged legatee staked his claim over the title and interest in the property in question almost six years after the date on which the will was allegedly executed. 1. 1 In effect and substance the subject matter of the two petitions is (i) the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No. 4 Mr. Jayantibhai R. Patel (hereinafter referred to as "the alleged legatee" or "the Respondent No. 4" who is also joined in SCA No. 2393/2009 as respondent No. 3) about the title to receive compensation in respect of parcels of huge land admeasuring about 53 vighas and 18 vasas equivalent to about 1,22,718 sq. mtrs. , popularly known as Police Pared Ground, Lal Baug bearing Survey No. 371 and 372 situate in Vadodara City, and about (ii) the action of the respondent No. 2 LAO in paying the compensation in the ratio of 81. 9% to the respondent No. 4. Since the respondents (except one respondent in SCA No. 1592/09) are common in both petitions and also for the reason that the relevant facts involved in both matters are almost similar and also because one of the reliefs prayed for (i. e. to command the respondent No. 2 LAO and Respondent No. 1 state to reclaim and redeposit the disbursed compensation) is common in both petitions, the two petitions are decided by this common judgment. 1. 2 The petitioners in SCA No. 1592 of 2009 have, inter alia, prayed :

(2.) THE facts emerging from the record of this proceedings need to be considered little closely. The petitioners have asserted following facts:

(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, it is necessary to record a subsequent development i. e. subsequent to the submission of SCA No. 1592/09 and 2923/09. We have been informed, during the hearing, that in April-2009, another petition being SCA No. 7242 of 2009 has been filed, wherein, the petitioners have claimed that according to the expert opinion the signature on the alleged will is not of the deceased Mr. Mahendrakumar P. Desai and the petitioners in the aforesaid petition have prayed that the orders dated 7. 5. 2007 and 28. 5. 2007, in Review Applications No. 169 of 2006 and 89 of 2007 respectively and the consent decree dated 9. 4. 2007 in Civil Suit No. 116 of 2007 may be declared void. It has also been submitted that by order dated 16. 7. 2009, the implementation of the aforesaid orders and decree has been stayed.