Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to declare acquisition of the lands bearing Survey Nos. 556/1 and 556/2 of Village: Gotri, Taluka & District: Vadodara, as illegal on account of wrongly invoking urgency clause contained in Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners have further prayed that the consent award dated 30.11.1992 may be declared as illegal and the respondents be directed to return the land of the petitioners.

2. Brief facts are as under.

3. Petitioners are all heirs of deceased Punjabhai Patel and were co-owners of lands bearing Survey Nos. 556/1 and 556/2 of Village:Gotri, admeasuring 4047 sq.mtrs. and 3667 sq.mtrs. respectively. The Vadodara Urban Development Authority required such land for construction of residential units for middle and low income group of the society. In order to acquire such lands of the petitioners alongwith other neighboring lands, therefore, a notification under Section 4(1) of the the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 10.04.1992. The acquiring body invoking urgency clause contained in Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without inviting and dealing with objections in terms of Clause 5A of the Act, proceeded to issue declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act on 17.06.1992. A consent award came to be passed in terms of Section 11(2) of the Act on 30.11.1992. With payment of compensation pursuant to such consent award, the possession of the land was also taken over by the Government and handed over to Vadodara Urban Development Authority.

4. It appears that on account of various reasons, the entire proposed housing scheme could not be developed. The lands of the petitioners as well as several other land owners in the vicinity remained unutilized for a substantial period of time. The petitioner No. 3 herein therefore, filed Special Civil Application No. 2514 of 2007 and prayed for a direction for quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of petitioner's land. In such petition also, the Court was concerned with the acquisition of the land bearing Survey Nos. 556/1 and 556/2 of Village: Gotri. The petitioner had contended before the High Court that the entire acquisition was by way of colourable exercise of powers and was based on total non application of mind on part of the authorities. The petitioner in the said petition therefore, in addition to praying for quashing and setting aside the acquisition proceedings had also prayed for returning of the land to the petitioner on the ground that the authorities no longer needed such land for development. The Division Bench of High Court by judgment dated 03.12.2007 dismissed the petition, noting that the Vadodara Urban Development Authority had developed part of the land but midway through the implementation of the scheme, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation has proposed Town Planning Schemes No. 60 and 61 of Village:Gotri and Village:Atladara by preparing draft schemes. The Court was of the opinion that it cannot be stated that the land acquired is not going to be used for the purpose for which it was acquired. The Court referred to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in case of State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., reported in AIR 1997 SC 2703 to come to the conclusion that at any rate, once the land was validly acquired, the same cannot be regranted to the original owner. The writ petition by the judgment dated 03.12.2007 was dismissed. Against said judgment, the petitioner therein i.e. present petitioner No. 3 preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was came to be dismissed on 03.03.2008.

5. The entire controversy regarding acquisition and the prayer of regrant of land should therefore, have been settled. However, on the premise that the petitioners came upon the letter dated 26.03.2008 written by the Vadodara Urban Development Authority to the Municipal Corporation, Vadodar