Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 409
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, Z.K. Saiyed, JJ.
Silver Leaf Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. - Appellant
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 2945 of 2001
Decided On: 08.03.2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: N.D. Nanavati, Rutvij M. Bhatt
For the Respondents: Rakesh Patel
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the decision-making process, the right to raise objections under Section 5A, and the need for valid grounds for varying an administrative decision.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 4, Section 6 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and the objections raised by the petitioner-society. The court analyzed the report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the decision-making process, and the irregularities in the decision to acquire the land. Key legal provisions such as Section 5A, the right to raise objections, and the significance of the Collector's recommendations were highlighted, influencing the court's decision to quash the notifications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cooperative housing society, challenged notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, regarding the acquisition of their land for a proposed engineering college. The society had purchased the land before the proposed acquisition and had obtained necessary permissions for development and construction of residential units.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the decision-making process suffered from material irregularities and total non-application of mind. The court highlighted the significance of the report and recommendations of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the right to raise objections under Section 5A, and the need for valid grounds for varying an administrative decision.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, the objections raised by the petitioner, and the decision-making process of the government authorities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the decision-making process, the significance of the Collector's recommendations, and the need for valid grounds for varying an administrative decision. The court also highlighted the procedural and technical difficulties in the decision-making process.
Final Decision: The court quashed the notifications dated 11.03.1999 and 21.06.2000 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, insofar as the lands of the petitioner-society are concerned, and allowed the petition accordingly.
Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside impugned notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) dated 11.03.1999 and 21.06.2000 respectively.
2. Brief facts are as under:
"The petitioner is a co-operative housing society duly registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act and consists of 38 members. The society had purchased land bearing Survey Nos. 187, 188 and of Village Motera, Taluka and District: Gandhinagar under a registered sale deed dated 29.05.1998. The land is situated in the outskirts of city of Ahmedabad."
3. The Government desired to set up an engineering college and, therefore, required certain private lands for such purpose in addition to the Government kharaba lands identified at the said location. To acquire sufficient lands for such purpose, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 04.08.1998. However, this notification did not include the land of the petitioner-society. However, subsequently, further notification dated 11.03.1999 was issued under Section 4 of the Act covering the land of the petitioner-society also.
4. After issuance of notification under Section 4, the Land Acquisition Officer was required to grant hearing to the persons interested and submit his report in terms of Section 5A of the Act. The petitioner lodged objections before the Special Land Acquisition Office under a communication dated 09.08.1999. In such communication, the petitioner pointed out that earlier nearby land bearing Survey No. 138 was released from acquisition. Such land was undeveloped. In case of the petitioner-society, NA, NOC have already been granted. Residential houses are being constructed. The members of the society have invested their lifetime savings. The Government has already granted nearly 2 lacs sq.yard of land at Chandkheda for the construction of the college which is more than sufficient. The petitioner pointed out that the AUDA has also deducted nearly 7000 sq.mtrs of the land of the petitioner-society. Along with such objection, the petitioner also annexed a copy of its earlier objection dated 03.04.1999.
5. Despite such objections, since the respondents did not drop the land of the petitioner from acquisition and, instead, issued notification under Section 6 of the Act on 21.06.2000, the petitioner filed this petition. In such petition, the petitioner pointed out that the land of the society was acquired long before the proposed acquisition. Necessary permission for development of the land had been granted by the authorities. The construction work of residential units for the members was also going on. The petitioner also raised certain grounds of personal mala fides and joined the then Minister of Technical Education as respondent No. 4 contending that it was solely on account of his personal rivalry with the Secretary of the petitioner-society that the land of the society was being acquired. The case of the petitioner was that, the Collector has given report under Section 5A of the Act recommending that the acquisition of petitioner's land be dropped.
6. During the pendency of the petition, this Court had granted order of status quo, protecting the petitioner from further acquisition proceedings. Such position continued throughout.
7. On 01.03.2016, noticing the broad contours of the petitioner's challenge to the acquisition, we had required the Government pleader to make the original file of the acquisition available for our perusal. Accordingly, today, the petition was taken up for further hearing, during which proceedings, we have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the original files of the Government concerning the acquisition of the petitioner's land.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner-society acquired the land in question long before the proposal for setting up of Government college was made. Even before issuance of notification
