The decision to acquire specific land under the Land Acquisition Act must be based on valid reasons and not actuated by legal malafides or incorrect facts.

Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged notifications issued by the State authorities under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and subsequent notice issued under Section 9 of the said Act with respect to their non-agricultural land situated in Palitana town.

2. Brief facts are as under:

3. Petitioner No. 1 is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Petitioner No. 2 is a partner of the firm. The petitioner-firm purchased land admeasuring 45225 square meters bearing survey No. 58 of Palitana under registered sale-deeds executed in the year 1990-91. The petitioner, thereafter, applied to the Collector for conversion of the use of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural use. The Collector granted such permission under order dated 12/09/1994 allowing commercial use of the land on various conditions. One of the conditions was that while carrying out the construction on the land, distance of 15 meters from the center of the road line would have to be kept open. The petitioner thereafter also presented layout plans for approval by the Collector. The Collector passed such layout plans. Later on, the Collector under order dated 12/01/1996 noted that the land is abutting on Songadh-Palitana State Highway between kilometers 54 and 55 and therefore, the petitioner would leave a clear margin of 10 meters from the center of road line while carrying out the construction. In this order, the Collector noted that the permission for conversion of the land user was granted on the condition that the proposed construction on such land would leave a clear margin of 15 meters from the center of road line. However, a further opinion of the Executive Engineer, Road and Building Department, Bhavnagar was obtained, who opined that there would be no objection in granting permission by reducing such margin to 10 meters. It was on this basis that the Collector in his said order dated 12/01/1996 while passing the petitioner's revised plans ordered modification of the condition of not carrying out construction within 15 meters from the road line to 10 meters.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had started construction as per the plans passed by the authorities and no portion of such construction was within a distance of 10 meters from the center of the road line, despite which one Shri Ravjibhai Odhabhai Vaghani, Deputy Engineer, Road and Building Department, Palitana issued a notice on 02/08/1997 suggesting that the petitioner's construction was not lawful. In order to protect such construction against demolition, the petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 599 of 1997 before the learned 6th Joint Civil Judge (SD), Bhavnagar, who on 18/08/2001 granted ex-parte injunction against demolition. Despite such injunction, a portion of the construction was demolished, due to which the petitioner filed contempt application Exhibit-93 before the said Court. Said Shri Vaghani was unhappy about the petitioner approaching the Court of law and then filing a contempt application against him, on account of which, he changed the center line of the road bringing it closer to the petitioner's land bearing survey No. 58. The petitioner, therefore, filed yet another Regular Civil Suit No. 647 of 2001 before the learned Civil Judge, (S.D.) Bhavnagar praying inter alia that the petitioner is entitled to carry out construction on the land in question after leaving portion of 10 meters from the center line open in terms of the order of the Collector dated 12/01/1996.

5. On 19/06/2002, the Government issued notification under Section 4 of the Act, 1894 proposing to acquire a total of 1008.61 square meters of land out of the petitioner's land bearing survey No. 58, which was by then sub-plotted into various plots. In this notification, it was declared that for four-