KATARA SALUJI PANAJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners, three in number, have challenged the notification dated 6. 7. 1999 under Section 4 and notification dated 23. 8. 1999 under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and also the impugned notices dated 24. 9. 1999 for taking over possession of the petitioners' lands bearing Survey Nos. 16/1, 16/2, 17 and 19/1 in village Shamlaji, Bhiloda taluka in Sabarkantha district. The notifications provided that the land was required to be acquired for a check-post (sales-tax) at Shamlaji.

(2.) THE notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Government gazette on 5. 7. 1999 and was published in the leading newspapers 'gujarat Samachar' and 'sandesh' dated 6. 7. 1999. The petitioners lodged their objections against the said notification on 25. 8. 1999. However, in the meantime, the notification under Section 6 was already issued on 23. 8. 1999 and was published in the newspapers dated 26. 8. 1999. It is the case of the respondents that after publication of the notification under Section 6, notices were issued under Section 9 of the Act, but the petitioners did not accept the same and, therefore, panchnama was drawn on 10. 9. 1999 and in presence of panchas, the notices were affixed on a conspicuous part of the acquiring site and zerox copies were given to the petitioners, but the petitioners declined to sign the office copy. It was also stated that the said notice under Section 9 was also affixed on the office premises of the Shamlaji Gram Panchayat on 10. 9. 1999 in presence of panchas. The respondents also invoked the urgency clause as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Act and by notice dated 24. 9. 1999 called upon the petitioners to hand over possession of the land within two days. The said notice dated 24. 9. 1999 has also been challenged in the present petition and the petitioners' contention is that the power to invoke the urgency clause in sub-section (1) of Section 17 is only conferred on the appropriate Government and that the Collector on his own cannot invoke the urgency clause in Section 17 (1) of the Act.

(3.) MR Sanjanwala, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that a citizen cannot be deprived of his right to hold property except in accordance with law and that Section 16 of the Act clearly provides that possession of the land can be taken after the Collector has made an award under section 11 of the Act. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that till the Collector makes the award and compensation is paid to the land holder, the land holder cannot be deprived of possession of the land under acquisition and that it is only after payment of compensation that possession should be allowed to be taken because it is upon taking possession of the land that it vests absolutely in the Government free from all encumbrances.