PATEL UPENDRABHAI CHHOTABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Mr. H.L.Jani, learned A.G.P. waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. At the joint request of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the petition is taken-up for final hearing today.

(2.) By means of filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to quash and set aside order dated 31/07/1998 passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojana (Shedhi) Unit No.9, Nadiad, by which separate applications dated 29/11/1996 submitted by the petitioners requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nadiad to refer the matters to the Court for the purpose of determination of compensation are rejected.

(3.) The petitioners were owners of different lands of village Khuntaj, Taluka : Nadiad, District : Kheda. Though in the petition particulars of those lands are not stated, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has produced a statement at the time of hearing of the petition. Therein particulars of survey numbers which were owned by the different petitioners are mentioned. A copy of the said statement was handed over to the learned Counsel for the respondents. Mr. H.L.Jani, learned Counsel for the respondents on instructions of Mr. R.V.Raval, Deputy Mamlatdar, Nadiad, who is personally present in the Court, states that the particulars mentioned in the said statement are correct. The said statement is ordered to be taken on record of the case. The above-referred to lands belonging to the petitioners were acquired by the State Government for the purpose of construction of Khumarva - Vishakha's Khuntaj Minor Ex-Vina Distributory pursuant to notification dated 7/10/1993, which was published under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) and declaration dated 6/03/1995 which was issued under section 6 of the said Act. Thereafter the interested persons were served with notices for determination of compensation and the Land Acquisition Officer had registered the case as Land Acquisition Case No. 267/93. The petitioners have claimed in the petition that the Special Land Acquisition Officer had made award on 19/03/1996, but no notice as contemplated by section 12(2) of the Act was served on any of the petitioners. According to the petitioners, compensation offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and, therefore, the petitioners made separate applications dated November 29, 1996 requiring Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nadiad to refer the matters to the Court for the purpose of determination of compensation. The demand made by the petitioners to refer the matters to Court for the purpose of determination of compensation is rejected by respondent no.2 on the ground that the applications were submitted by the petitioners after the prescribed time limit by order dated 31/07/1998, which is produced at Annexure-C to the petition. The petitioners have stated in the petition that the petitioners came to know about the award having been made only when the compensation was paid to them by respondent no.2 on 8/11/1996. What is averred in the petition is that as no notices were served on any of the petitioners under section 12(2) of the Act, application dated 29/11/1996 made by the petitioners requiring respondent no.2 to refer the matters to the Court for the purpose of determination of compensation could not have been rejected on the ground that they were time barred. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have filed present petition and claimed relief to which reference is made earlier.