PATEL RATILAL PRAHLADBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE Ms. Maithili Mehta waives service of rule for the respondents. Having regard to the controversy involved in the present case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

(2.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek a direction against the respondent No. 2, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Project, Unit No. 3, Ahmedabad to decide the application made by the petitioners under section 28a of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") within three months and consequently grant the application of the petitioners with all statutory benefits available under section 28a of the Act.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are that lands admeasuring 9688 sq. mts. of Survey No. 34 of Moje: Madrisana, Taluka Detroj, District Ahmedabad which were jointly owned by the petitioners as members of an HUF came to be acquired for the purpose of the Narmada Main Canal. The Land Acquisition Officer declared award under section 11 of the Act on 30. 3. 1996 awarding compensation of Rs. 29296. 51ps in respect of the lands of the petitioners in Land Acquisition Case No. 40/94. It appears that with the consent of the petitioners, the said amount was paid through a cheque issued in favour of the petitioner No. 1, Ratilal Prahladbhai Patel.