Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Guj) 695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIKRAM NATH, BIREN VAISHNAV, JJ.
DILIPSINHJI GODJI JADEJA - Appellant
Versus
SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD & others - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7255 of 2014
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7256 of 2014
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7257 of 2014
Decided On : 23-08-2021

Advocates Appeared:
For The Appellant :MR.MAULIK NANAVATI, ADVOCATE for NANAVATI AND CO.
For The Respondent:MS.AISHVARYA GUPTA, AGP, MS.MANISHA LAVKUMAR, LD. SENIOR ADVOCATE with ROHAN LAVKUMAR

Point of Law: In case a person has been tendered the compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of the 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court. The obligation to pay is complete by tendering the amount under Section 31(1).

Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, 9, 11, 12(2) and 31(1) - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 24(1)(b) - Official Languages Act, 1963 - Gujarat Official Languages Act, 1960 - Section 3 - Lands - Compensation - Declaring An Award - Case of petitioners that by virtue of consent award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer in case of 18 other similarly situated land owners, as compared to awarding them compensation of Rs.66/- per square meter, petitioners have been deprived of compensation on same lines by declaring an award fixing an amount of Rs.29.47 per square meter of non-irrigated land - Case of petitioner is that while passing award, no individual notices under Section 9 were issued, violating principles of natural justice and award therefore is illegal and without following mandatory statutory procedure.
Finding of the Court:
Letters addressed by all petitioners unequivocally indicate an admitted position that award was served on them - Subsequent letters of Ghanshyamsinh Jadeja withdrawing letters also significantly indicates an admission of he having received a notice under Section 12(2) of Act together with copy of award - Shri Ghanshyamsinh Jadeja even received forms on behalf of petitioner for accepting consent award - A communication annexed to additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1 would indicate that petitioners were informed and were tendered compensation amount in respect of lands in question - Such notices were accepted by Ghanshyamsinh Jadeja on behalf of petitioners as is evident from signature on acknowledgment slips of postal department - In case a person has been tendered compensation as provided under Section 31(1) of 1894 Act, it is not open to him to claim that acquisition has lapsed under Section 24(2) due to non-payment or non-deposit of compensation in court - Obligation to pay is complete by tendering amount under Section 31(1) - Landowners who had refused to accept compensation or who sought reference for higher compensation, cannot claim that acquisition proceedings had lapsed under Section 24(2) of 2013 Act - It is evident that an award under Section 11 was passed - Physical possession of land could not be taken by virtue of status-quo order passed by this Court - Attempts were made by authorities to tender compensation to petitioners, which was denied by them - No case therefore is made out even in context of applicability of Act of 2013.
Result: Application disposed of

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. These three petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging land acquisition proceedings relating to survey nos.184, 214 and 215 of Village:Chassara, Taluka:Mundra, District:Kutch. It is the case of the petitioners that inadequate compensation has been awarded to the petitioners and therefore, the award dated 10.10.2013 passed in Land Acquisition Case No.33 of 2011 is bad. Procedural illegalities in the land acquisition proceedings, inasmuch as, non compliance of provisions of Sections 4, 6, 9 and 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’ for short) is also a subject matter of challenge.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that by virtue of the consent award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in case of 18 other similarly situated land owners, as compared to awarding them compensation of Rs.66/- per square meter, the petitioners have been deprived of compensation on the same lines by declaring an award dated 10.10.2013 fixing an amount of Rs.29.47 per square meter of non-irrigated land. The case of the petitioner is that while passing the award, no individual notices under Section 9 were issued, violating the principles of natural justice and the award therefore is illegal and without following the mandatory statutory procedure. The petition was so filed in the year 2014 essentially on the aforesaid grounds.

3. By a subsequent amendment to the petition in the year 2016, the petitioners challenged the proceedings on the additional grounds that the notification dated 15.10.2011 mentioned in the award dated 10.10.2013 does not list the land belonging to the petitioner; that public hearing as envisaged under Section 9 did not take place. The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act of 2013’ for short) were pressed into service contending that the award dated 10.10.2013 was communicated only after 01.01.2014 and therefore the award in accordance with the provisions of Section 24(1)(b) ought to be considered as an award under the Act of 2013 and the petitioners are entitled to receive compensation as per the provisions of the 2013 Act. The Division Bench of this Court on 09.05.2014 recorded the following order and directed the parties to maintain status-quo since the possession was with the petitioners.

“Notice returnable on 21.6.2014.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has urged that 17 persons out of the 21 persons whose lands have been acquired, they have been paid compensation at a particular rate by consent. The petitioner has also agreed and is ready to take compensation at the same rate which the respondents are not providing to them. The respondents shall explain as to why the compensation at the same rate which was being paid to other 17 persons is not being provided to the petitioner.

In this view of the matter, since possession is with the petitioner, we direct the parties to maintain status-quo till the next date of listing. D.S. permitted.”

4. On 23.09.2014, the Court again passed an order recording the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr.Nanavati. Paras 4 to 7 of the order read as under:

“4. Mr.Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that he is of the view that if the grace is shown by the State and the acquiring authority to treat these petitioners at par, so far as compensation amount is concerned with the other seventeen farmers in whose case the land price was fixed at Rs.66/- per Sq.Mtr., then even the challenge to acquisition may not be insisted upon. Of course this suggestion is without prejudice to continue with the challenge in question. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners went a step ahead and submitted that even he can per

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Guj) 695

Cases Referred (3)