2008 Supreme(Guj) 131

2008 (3) GCD 2201 (Guj) (DB)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.R. Vora &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Ramnikbhai Ramjibhai & Anr.
Versus
State of Gujarat Thro. Vilasini Ramchandran, IAS & Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 1689 of 20061—Decided on 11/04/2008

Point in Issue :
Whether in the facts impugned acquisition of land by authorities legal and valid?

Headnote:Head Note :

       Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4, 5-A, 6, 9, 11 and 18 — Land Acquisition — For High Court building etc. — Challenge — Ground of absence of need — And lack of opportunity to make effective representation — Finding of — Sustainability — Respondents acquired 62000 of land of ten land-owners including petitioners — Except the petitioners all other land-owners have accepted the compensation and have made reference — Petitioners have also made reference and have presented the impugned petition challenging the acquisition on various grounds — The petitioners have contended that certain information sought by them was not given to them, therefore, they have been deprived from making effective representation — Considering the list of information sought by petitioners Court found that except one or two information Collector was not supposed to furnish the other information — The petition have gone upto Supreme Court and petitioners were informed that they may seek information under Right to Information Act — The petitioners sought information under the Act but did not furnish any particulars — It appears that petitioners were not serious about the information or were satisfied by and large with the information supplied vide various communications — Similarly contention of petitioner with regard absence of need and requirement of land for High Court building etc. is without any force and substance — It is a matter for appropriate Government to decide as to which particular land and how much land would be required for the public purpose in question — There is also no evidence on record to hold that inspite of the availability of Government waste land authorities have acquired the land of private persons — The land in question and other lands acquired are just adjacent to the existing High Court Complex, therefore, it connot be said that any illegality has been committed by authorities in acquiring the said lands, it is also worthy to note that in the case acquisition proceeding have been completed, possession has been taken over and in turn same is handed over to High Court for construction — Also award has been declared except the petitioners all other land owners have accepted the compensation and have submitted reference application under the Act and no steps are taken by the petitioners to obtain appropriate order after effective hearing and allowed the acquisition proceedings to be completed — In the circumstances Court held, that present petition cannot be allowed.

       Held :

       In the present case also as stated hereinabove, acquisition proceedings have been completed; possession has been taken over and in turn handed over to the acquiring body i.e. High Court; award has been declared; except the petitioners all other land owners have accepted the compensation and have submitted reference applications under Section 18 of the Act and even the petitioner’s have also submitted reference application under Section 18 of the Act under protest and no steps are taken by the petitioners to obtain appropriate order after effective hearing and allowed the acquisition proceedings to be completed and therefore, the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not required to be entertained and the declaration under Section 6 of the Act cannot be quashed now as irreversible situation has arisen. [Para 44]

       On bare reading of the aforesaid and the purpose for which the information was sought, except one or two information sought by the petitioners, the Collector is not supposed to either furnish the information and/or was not supposed to have the information. As stated above, by communication dated 23.09.2004, the petitioners were informed to submit the objection at the relevant time after notice under Section 4(l) of the Act are served. That the aforesaid communication dated 23.09.2004 was the subject matter of Special Civil Application No. 13153 of 2004 and a grievance was made in the said communication with respect to not providing informations/materials sought vide communication dated 13.09.2004 and the said Special Civil Application came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgement and order dated 08.10.2004, against which SLP was preferred by the petitioners before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which also came to be disposed of by observing that it will be open for the petitioners to sought informations under Right to Information Act.

        [Para 46]

       However, considering the said application dated 25.08.2006 which was submitted under Right to Information Act, it is clear that no particulars were given by the petitioners for which information was sought for. The information was sought by the aforesaid application without giving any particulars and therefore, by communication dated 08.09.2006, the petitioners were informed that it is not clear which information is sought. It appears that thereafter the petitioners vide communication dated 25.09.2006 sought information from the authority under the Right to Information Act. By the aforesaid communication, the petitioners sought informations/particulars which are reproduced hereinabove. It is required to be noted at this stage that the application was submitted by the petitioners to the authority under Right to Information Act of the Revenue Department only and not before the appropriate authority of the other concerned departments with whom the information is supposed to be and/or relevant appropriate authority. Still the authority under the Right to Information Act of the Revenue Department, State of Gujarat sent the said application to the appropriate authorities, such as Legal Department, Executive Engineer, PWD etc. and the petitioners were informed to approach the said authorities. It appears from the various correspondence that the concerned department provided relevant informations/particulars to the petitioners and the petitioners were also informed that if the petitioners are still not satisfied, it will be open for them to prefer appeal as provided under Right to Information Act. Nothing is on record to show that the petitioners ever preferred any appeal before the appellate authority under Right to Information Act making a grievance with respect to non-supply of all or any of the informations/particulars sought by the petitioners. Therefore, it appears that the petitioners were either satisfied with the informations/particulars already furnished by the concerned department or the petitioners were not very much serious about their grievance with respect to non-supply of any of the informations/particulars. Considering various communications, it appears that by and large all the informations/ particulars which are relevant have been furnished to the petitioners. [Para 46]

       The land in question and other lands acquired under the impugned notification are just adjacent to the existing High Court complex and therefore, they are selected for expansion of the High Court and therefore, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by the authorities in acquiring the said lands. On the contrary, the lands adjacent to the existing High Court complex are the most suitable land for expansion of the High Court. It is also required to be noted at this stage that there are no allegations of mala fides made by the petitioners. It cannot be said that the land has been selected in breach of any of the constitutional provisions. It is not even urged that any of the constitutional provisions have been violated in selecting the land. Therefore, no case for interference with the decision of the Government/High Court in selecting the land in question. [Para 54]

       How to put up construction and use the land acquired is to be considered by the appropriate authority. What is required to be considered broadly is whether there is any justification and there is a need to acquire the land for the public purpose or not and the same is required to be considered broadly. As stated above, there are no mala fides alleged by the petitioner’s either in selecting the land in question or in respect to the area of the land acquired. It is also the contention on behalf of the petitioners that neither the High Court nor the Government Officer has provided informations in respect of the area of the Court rooms to be constructed; area of the buildings for judicial Academy, Legal Aid Services authority etc. area of the auditorium, area of the chambers; area of the Library etc. and in absence of such material, the subjective satisfaction has been vitiated. It is to be noted that after land is acquired, planning is to be made how to construct and what to construct; design and area of the buildings at the time of sending the proposal and/or at the time of acquisition such detailed particulars are not required to be furnished. As stated above, the broad requirements are to be considered. What is required to be considered is whether there is any justification and/or need and/or requirement to acquire the land for public purpose or not After the land is acquired, all other aspects are to be considered by the acquiring body such as design and area of the buildings, Court rooms etc. as per the requirement Therefore, in absence of such detailed particulars, it cannot be said that subjective satisfaction to acquire the land in question for the expansion of the High Court has been vitiated. [Para 56]

       Law Laid Down :

       It cannot be presumed that as the decision has been taken within one day there will always be a non-application of mind.

       Case Law Analysis :

       Ram Charan Lal vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1952 All 752 [Para 7];; Tej Kaur & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., 2003 SCC 485 = AIR 2003 SC 2414 [Para 8];; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chenai & Ors., 2005 (7) SCC 627 [Para 8];; Smt. Somawanti & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 151 [Para 9];; Shri Farid Ahmed Abdul Samad & Anr. vs. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad & Anr., 1976 (3) SCC 719 [Para 9];; State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. vs. A. Mohammed Yousef & Anr., 1991 (4) SCC 224 [Para 9].—Distinguished

       Talson Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Mah. & Ors., 2007 (6) Scale 478 [Para 25];; Delhi Administration vs. Gurudip Singh Uban & Ors., 2000 (7) SCC 296 [Para 26];; State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. D.R. Laxmi & Ors., 1996 (6) SCC 445 [Para 31];; H.M. Kelogirao & Ors. vs. Government of A.P. & Ors., 1997 (7) SCC 722 [Para 32];; Northern Indian Glass Industries vs. Jaswant Singh & Ors., AIR 2003 SC 234 [Para 33];; Mandoobhai Dadoobhai vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 1995 (3) GLH 907 [Para 36];; Larsen & Turbo Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 1998 (4) SCC 387 [Para 42];; State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh, AIR 1980 SC 319 [Para 53];; Ramgir Uttamgir Goswami vs. State of Gujarat, 29 (1) GLR 502 [Para 53];; Om Prakash vs. State of U.P., 1998 (6) SCC 1 [Para 58].—Relied on

       Application Dismissed