HARESHBHAI PUNABHAI MORADIYA Vs. COMPETENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) Learned counsel Shri Bhavyraj Gohil for Shri A. J. Yagnik, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that in fact this petition is one of the group petitions, which came to be disposed of by this Court on 26.11.2018 and this was left out, hence, this may be disposed of in terms of the said order. However, only mark change between the two was in the instant case the N.A. Permission in respect of the subject land was granted on 27th November, 2013 and that happened to be the date of publication of the notification dated 27th November, 2013. Hence, the entire aspect of compensation needs to be reviewed in light of the aforesaid fact.

(3.) The counsel has submitted, under instruction, that there exists no super structure and therefore, the question of super structure would not arise and that shall take care of the apprehension expressed by the respondents' counsel. The counsel also submitted that last paragraph of the order dated 26.11.2018 would govern, so far as the petition is concerned whereunder the petitions were confined to determination of compensation and related issues and has not pressed other aspects like appointment of Arbitrator etc. The entire order dated 26.11.2018 with emphasis upon paragraph no.10 and its clarification in the speaking to minutes dated 26.04.2019, deserve to be reproduced hereunder: