Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1075
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Harsha Devani, G.B. Shah, JJ.
Chhitabhai Devjibhai Patel and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
State of Gujarat and Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application Nos. 3070 and 3075 of 2013
Decided On : 07-06-2016
For the Appellants : B.S. Patel
For the Respondents: Dhawan Jayswal
Headnote:
The petitioners challenged the notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1894 Act) and the communication dated 27th August, 2012 issued by the Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer, GIDC, Ankleshwar, rejecting their objections to the acquisition of their lands. They also sought a direction to the respondents to recover the amount paid to the fourth respondent with interest.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were agriculturists and were cultivating the lands situated in the village Manad, taluka and district Bharuch since the time of their forefathers. The Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited wanted the lands of the village for rehabilitation and considering the interest of the farmers at large, the farmers of the village had given their lands by consent, which was done with a view to see that the farmers of the State can flourish. It was the case of the petitioners that their lands are fertile and that in case their lands are acquired, they would lose their agricultural lands and would have to go in search of other agricultural lands at distant places, which would amount to uprooting them from their own village. The petitioners had approached the Agricultural Land Tribunal under section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) contending that they were tenants of the land situated at Kasrol, Eksal and Manad bearing Block No. 139, Block No. 2 and Block No. 249 respectively. Initially, the Mamlatdar had held the petitioners to be tenants but subsequently, when the appellate authority had remanded the matter by its order dated 4th February, 1990, on further inquiry, the Mamlatdar held that the petitioners could not be declared to be tenants under section 32(g) of the Act. Against the order of the Mamlatdar, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Deputy Collector, Bharuch, who, by an order dated 21st January, 1994, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Collector, the petitioners preferred revision applications before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal being TENA Nos. 106, 107 and 108 of 1994. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, held that the petitioners were not right in law in claiming tenancy rights and were not entitled to purchase the lands under section 32(g) of the Tenancy Act as the lands in question were exempted from the operation of the said Act. Against the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, the petitioners approached this court by way of Special Civil Application No. 5378/1995 and connected petitions wherein the petitioners settled the dispute with the fourth respondent and declared before this court that they were never the tenants of the land in question. Thereafter, the petitioners entered into a consent agreement with the fourth respondent and the consent terms also came to be recorded. The petitioners thereafter preferred review application before this court which came to be rejected by an order dated 28th September, 2012. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 1311/2012, which came to be dismissed for non-compliance of the directions of this court.
Issues: 1. Whether the procedure as laid down under section 5A of the 1894 Act had been complied with? 2. Whether the petitioners had locus standi to file the present petitions challenging the declaration under section 6 of the 1894 Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the procedure as laid down under section 5A of the 1894 Act had been substantially complied with and there was no non-compliance of the provisions thereof. 2. The court held that the petitioners had lost in the Tenancy Proceedings till the stage of letters patent appeals, and the claim that they are tenants of the lands in question did not stand established. Besides, representatives of each group of petitioners had filed consent terms in the writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal in the Tenancy proceedings. In these circumstances, it went without saying that, at this stage, without having established any right, title or interest in the lands in question, the petitioners were not entitled to claim any interest in the compensation of the acquired land. Under the circumstances, the petitioners not being persons interested in the land notified under section 4, sub-section (1) of the Act, do not have any locus to file any objection under section 5A of the Act.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed with costs.
Harsha Devani, J.
1. Since the reliefs prayed for in both these petitions are identical and the facts and contentions are also similar, the same were taken up for hearing together and are disposed of by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, reference is made to the facts as stated in Special Civil Application No. 3075/2013.
2. By these petitions, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 27th August, 2012 passed by the respondent No. 3 - Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (Annexure 'A' to the petitions) turning down the request of the petitioners to release their lands from acquisition. The petitioners have also challenged the Notification dated 14th March, 2013 issued by the first respondent under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "1894 Act"). The petitioners also seek a direction to the respondents No. 1 to 3 to recover the amount paid to the fourth respondent with interest forthwith and also seek a direction against the respondent authorities prohibiting them from making any payment in the event the acquisition is upheld by this court to anyone except the petitioners. The petitioners have prayed for the above reliefs in the backdrop of the following facts.
2.1 It is the case of the petitioners that they are agriculturists and are cultivating the lands situated in the sim of village Manad, taluka and district Bharuch since the time of their forefathers. The description of the land is set out in a table in paragraph 3.1 of the memorandum of petition. According to the petitioners, the entire village Manad survives upon agriculture and that the petitioners are also interested in agricultural activities as they do not know anything except cultivation. Earlier, the Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited wanted the lands of the village for rehabilitation and considering the interest of the farmers at large, the farmers of the village had given their lands by consent, which was done with a view to see that the farmers of the State can flourish. It is further the case of the petitioners that their lands are fertile and that in case their lands are acquired, they would lose their agricultural lands and would have to go in search of other agricultural lands at distant places, which would amount to uprooting them from their own village.
2.2 The first respondent - State of Gujarat, in exercise of powers under section 4 of the 1894 Act, declared its intention to acquire the lands specified in the Schedule to the notification for a public purpose viz. for expansion of Housing of Dahej Industrial Estates by Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation. In response to the said notification, the petitioners, who did not want to give up their lands, submitted their objections thereto. The village panchayat also passed a resolution opposing the notification and submitted its objections thereto. It is the case of the petitioners that pursuant to the objections filed by them, the second respondent issued a notice dated 17th April, 2012 for personal hearing which came to be served upon them on 20th April, 2012 and the date of hearing was fixed on 26th April, 2012. According to the petitioners, the initial date of hearing was 26th May, 2012, however, the same came to be changed to 26th April, 2012 by overwriting on the date. Some of the petitioners submitted an application before the second respondent that because of paucity of time, detailed objections could not be submitted and requested for time. It is the case of the petitioners that they were waiting for the next date of hearing, however, instead, the impugned order dated 27th August, 2012 came to be served upon them whereby it was conveyed to them that their applications had been filed. It is the case of the petitioners that no effective hearing has been given to the petitioners nor have any proper reasons been assign
