JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Learned AGP Ms. Dhwani Tripathi waives service of notice on behalf of respondent State and Mr. H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate waives service of notice on behalf of respondent No. 4. Rule is fixed forthwith.

2. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order of respondent No.3 i.e. Deputy Collector dated 6.7.2009 passed in Order No. RTS/REMAND/APPEAL NO. 171/2005 and further order dated 2.2.2011 passed in RTS/REMAN/ APPEAL No. 153/09 and the order dated 29.4.2016 passed by respondent No.1 Secretary Appeals (SSRD) passed in MVV/HKP/SAT/23/2012.

3. The brief facts of the present petition are as under:

3.1 The grand-father of the petitioners namely Faramji Sapurji Vesuna was the original owner of the land bearing Survey No. 24, admeasuring H 1-21– 00 sq. Mtrs (Old Survey No. 31/1, 31/2, 31/3, 31/4) of Village: Vesu, Taluka: Choryasi, District: Surat and his name was entered in the revenue record of 1944-45. Thereafter, name of the father of the petitioner namely Dinsaji Faramji Sapurji Vesuna was entered in the revenue record in the year 1948-49. The petitioner came to know regarding so-called exparte award passed in 23.9.1965 and entry being entry No. 2155 was mutated on 21.1.1997 in revenue record whereby name of respondent No.6 was entered as occupier after 32 years. It is submitted by the petitioner that they had never received any notice for acquisition and not a single penny is paid to the petitioners and the alleged acquirement of the land is without following due procedure of law. It is contended that when the petitioners obtained copy of the revenue record of the land in question on 30.6.2000, they came to know that an order of Land Acquisition No. PR/432/63 dated 23.9.1965 is entered in the second right of 7/12 abstract for the purpose of Primary Health Centre Piplod. Therefore, the petitioner immediately tried to get copy of the award of 1965 but they could not find record. The petitioner made application to get a copy of the award to the concerned Department, but they replied by letter dated 24.10.2001 that copy of the award of the year 1965 is not available. Even thereafter, the petitioners applied to get copy of the Gazette but vide reply dated 1.7.2002 it was informed that no such record is available.

3.2 It is contended that entry of the so-called award of 23.9.1965 has been entered into revenue record vide entry No. 2155 on 21.1.1997, the petitioner came to know about this fact in 2000. The petitioners then filed appeal before respondent No.3. The Deputy Collector, on the basis of the letter dated 14.11.1996, written by District Development Officer to the Taluka Development Officer hold that acquisition has taken place.

3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 28.10.2004, passed by Deputy Collector, the petitioner approached Collector in 2005 wherein also without taking any evidence and without verifying any Village revenue record and without verifying the fact as to how much land is acquired, the Collector remanded the matter back to subordinate authority to verify all these facts. In view of the communication issued from the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Surat and letter of DILR, Surat that records were destroyed in the floods, on the basis of the earlier communication that acquisition proceedings had undertaken in 1965, ultimately, the same fate has happened to the said remanded proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner once again approached the Collector by way of Appeal. But, he has also rejected the same and against the same, the petitioners have approached SSRD, wherein also the application came to be rejected.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid factual aspect, the petitioner has challenged the impugned action of the respondents on the ground that:

(i) that no notice of any acquisition proceedings were ever received by the fore-father of the petitioner and no compensation has ever been paid;

(ii) That the award of 1965 is not produced and there is al