Back
2013 Supreme(Guj) 460
Gujarat High Court
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ravi R. Tripathi & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohinder Pal
Legal Heirs and Representative of Deceased Ahmad Mahmad & Anr.
Versus
State of Gujarat & Ors.
Special Civil Application No. 11854 of 20121—Decided on 20/11/2013
Appearance :
Mr. Nirav C. Thakkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Nos. 1 - 1.2, 2 - 2.5.3, 2.6.
Mr. Vandan Baxi, AGP, for the Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
Mr. M.B. Gandhi, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3.
Notice Served by D.S., for the Respondent No. 2.
Point in Issue :
Whether petitioners are entitled to declaration that acquisition of their land has lapsed on ground of delay.
Headnote:Head Note :
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) — Sections 11-A and 12(2) — Acquisition of Land — Petition for quashing and setting aside being lapsed on account of delay — Sustainability — Finding of — Award in the case was passed on 14.02.1991 and when Court asked for this inordinate delay in coming to Court, the reasons given clearly suggested that petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands — The petitioners had knowledge of the acquisition proceedings but then did not challenge and it is only after having had fruits of there proceedings may not be directly then indirectly as a calculated attempt to seen that if by pressing into service intricacies of Law if the acquisition could be got declared to be void so as to have nothing less than a gold mine have approached this Court–But this Court can not pay premium to a dishonest attempt — In the result Court having found the petitions without any merit dismissed the same.
Held :
The Court did inquire from the learned Advocate for the petitioners that, whether the petitioners are residing at the same place (the place which is under acquisition). Learned Advocate for the petitioners replied that the petitioners are residing at the same place. It was next put to the learned Advocate for the petitioners whether the petitioners noticed any unusual activity in the vicinity of their lands (unusual activity is referred to the activities which do not come within the purview of normal activities on the agricultural land). Learned Advocate for the petitioners was fair enough and submitted that it was noticed that some boundary wall is constructed. It was then put to the learned Advocate for the petitioners as to, how for from the lands in question, that boundary wall is constructed Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that he will not be able to answer in exact terms of the distance, but one thing is certain that the petitioners were able to notice construction of compound wall. If that is so, this Court is not ready to believe that an agriculturist will not inquire into as to what this boundary wall is coming up for. This is to suggest that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioners had knowledge of the acquisition proceedings, but then, did not challenge those proceedings and it is only after having had the fruits of those proceedings, may not be directly then indirectly, as a calculated attempt, to seer that if by pressing into service intricacies of law if the ‘acquisition’ could be got declared to be void so as to have nothing less than a gold mine, have approached this Court. [Para 4.4]
The Court can take notice of the fact that it can never happen that immediately after the land is acquired, within a period of three to five years, it is exhausted. It so happens, then for future growth /expansion, further acquisition will be required which will not be possible because by that, land will not be available at the same place. In that case, growth will not be harmonious growth. Therefore, these submissions are found to be without any substance. [Para 5]
In the result, the Court finds that these petitions are without any merit. The same are dismissed. [Para 6]
Law Laid Down :
Court can not pay premium to a dishonest attempt be it on the part of an agriculturist.
Ravi R. Tripathi, J.—Learned Advocate for the petitioners submitted that Special Civil Application No. 11854 of 2012 is the lead petition and Special Civil Application Nos. 3279, 3280 and 3281 of 2013 are one page petitions.
2. These petitions are filed praying that:—
“8. (B) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the award dated 14.2.1991 passed by the Respondent No. 2 (Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) Unit No. 1, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad) by inter alia declaring that delay has vitiated the acquisition of the lands under the impugned award and the same has lapsed with respect to the lands of the petitioners bearing Survey Nos. 325, 325 paiki, 342 and 361 situated at village Sachin, Tal. Choryasi, Distt. Surat;”
3. It is true that it is always good that the society is governed by law but then, that carries with it an inbuilt danger of process of law being abused. Present is the case wherein award of 1991 is challenged by filing these petitions and it is not difficult for anybody, much less the Court to understand the underlying object /purpose of filing these petitions. The land acquisition proceedings are by now more than two decades old and a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that prices of real estate have skyrocketed beyond imagination of the staunch supporter of inflation in the real estate. It is true that nobody would have dreamt of the prices which the real estate will be fetching in 2013 when the present land acquisition proceedings took place. This Court has no hesitation in putting on record that but for that skyrocketed prices of the real estate, the petitioners would not have taken trouble to come to this Court and challenge land acquisition proceedings wherein the land owners consented for giving their lands to the public authority so as to enable the public authority to plan development around the city of Surat and the Court will not be wrong if it is also put on record that the land owners must have had some benefit out of the said industrial development. (emphasis supplied).
3.1 It is not a matter of which judicial notice cannot be taken that normally for planed growth, acquisition is required to be made on massive basis. It is only thereafter that there could be required planning of growth and while doing so, the policy makers have to provide for room for future expansion and planning has to be made accordingly.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners in all these petitions very vehemently contended that there is a breach of Section 11-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Section 11-A provides “Period within which an award shall be made”. No doubt it is provided that:—
“(1) The Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of the publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period, the entire proceedings for the acquisition of the land shall lapse:
Provided that in a case where the said declaration has been published before the commencement of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, the award shall be made within a period of two years from such commencement.”
4.1 It is also contended that there is breach of Sub-section (2) of Section 12. Section 12 provides “An award of the Collector when to be final”. Sub-section (2) provides that:—
“The Collector shall give immediate notice to his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made.”
4.3 Learned Advocate for the petitioners was asked to invite attention of the Court to the reasons for approaching this Court belatedly only in the year 2012, challenging award dated 14.02.1991. Learned Advocate for the petitioners invited attention of the Court to Paras-3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 of the petition. Least it be said that the Court has kept back the contents of those Paras. The same are reproduced for ready perusal:—
“3.5 The petitioners state that no notice under Section 12(2) has been serv
