Point of Law: The Constitution Bench has clearly held that no right would accrue to erstwhile landowners whose lands had been acquired and compensation paid to claim benefits of Section-24(2) only on the ground of possession. Such claimants would have to establish and pass both the tests of compensation not being paid to them and also that they are continuing in possession. The Constitution Bench further held that deposit of the compensation with the Treasury under Section-31(1) would be sufficient compliance of the fact that compensation has been paid. In the present case, GIDC has specifically stated on oath and has also filed documents to show that compensation was paid to and received by majority of the landowners and for the remaining few it was deposited in the Court

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIKRAM NATH)

1. This group of petitions has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by erstwhile landowners of different parcels of land said to have been acquired by the State for the benefit of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (for short “GIDC”) sometime in the year 1987. Total land acquired was 1347 Hectares 88 Aare and 44 sq.mtrs. It was situated in four villages. The details of the same are provided below :

2. Special Civil Application No.11931 of 2019 is taken up as the lead matter for recording of brief facts. The reliefs claimed by means of this petition is firstly to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to demolish properties in question, not to destroy the standing crops, not to destroy or cut 1400 palm trees and other trees standing in the land in question and not to destroy the tabela for buffaloes and cows of the petitioners. The second relief claimed is to direct the respondents to regrant/reallot the land in question to the petitioners as the object of the land acquisition has lapsed. In other petitions also similar reliefs have been claimed.

3. The main ground on which these petitions are filed is that although the land was acquired in 1987 for the benefit of the GIDC, but in fact, no development activity was carried out by the GIDC, the land is still lying unutilized, it is still in possession of the petitioners who were the landowners and the object of the acquisition having frustrated, the land so acquired deserves to be returned to the petitioners. In other words, it has been prayed that the land in question be regranted/reallotted to the petitioners.

4. The GIDC filed counter affidavit according to which, notifications under sections 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 1894 Act) were issued on 22.01.1987 and 21.03.1988 respectively (page-41). Later on two awards dated 09.05.1989 and 19.07.1989 were passed. It is stated in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit that possession was also handed over to the State Government and thereafter to the GIDC. It is further stated that for substantial area of land acquired, there were consent awards, which were executed pursuant to which possession was given and in all the revenue records, name of the GIDC has already been recorded. The Sanad along with the revenue records incorporating the name of the GIDC is filed as Annexure–R/2. In effect, according to the GIDC, as the land in question stands absolutely vested in the State and thereafter in the GIDC free from all encumbrances, the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the land in question.

4.1 In paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that apart from the regular awards, there were consent awards and each and everyone had been paid compensation. A chart is also annexed as Annexure-R/1 along with the counter affidavit giving details. According to the table, it contains details of 30 transactions with date of the consent award and its details along with the compensation determined and the details of its payment by cheques. It is also stated that some of the landowners did not accept the payment and the amounts of compensation have been deposited in the Court.

4.2 In paragraphs-6 and 7 of the counter affidavit, it is stated that the GIDC has developed the land and further allotted it to different parties. There have been issues where possession was obstructed with respect to NSP Infrastructure Private Limited for which police help was required, details of which are stated in the said paragraphs. The correspondence in that respect is collectively annexed as Annexure – R/3.

4.3 In paragraph-8 of the counter affi