JUDGMENT :

ARAVIND KUMAR, J.

1. By consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. These two petitions are being filed assailing and/or questioning the order dated 31.12.2021 passed by 2nd Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad dated 31.12.2021 in L.A.Q. Case No.16 of 2017 whereunder total compensation of Rs.23,05,30,044/- has been awarded and a sum of Rs.2,53,03,512/- has been ordered to be apportioned between respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Assailing the said determination as impermissible and outside the scope of Sections 20, 21 and 27 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and resettlement Act, 2013 (‘the Act’ for short), Special Civil Application No.5166 of 2022 has been filed. Whereas respondent No.3 in Special Civil Application No.5166 of 2022 assailing the very same order dated 31.12.2021 by filing Special Civil Application No.10726 of 2022 contending, inter alia, that it is entitled for the entire compensation and neither writ applicants in Special Civil Application No.5166 of 2022 nor respondent No.2 in the said Special Civil Application are entitled to any amount of compensation.

4. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Mr. D.G. Shukla for the writ applicants in Special Civil Application No.5166 of 2022, Mr. K.M. Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 in both the petitions and Mr. M.T.M. Hakim, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. Mitul Shelat, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.3 in Special Civil Application No.5166 of 2022 who are also appearing for respondent No.6 in the connected matter.

5. Though Mr. Devang Vyas, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the writ applicants in Special Civil Application No.5166 of 2022 has vehemently contended that the determination of compensation by the Collector by apportionment of the compensation to the extent of 90% in favour of the writ applicants in Special Civil Application No.5166 of 2022 and 10% between respondent Nos.2 and 3 is outside the scope of the provisions of the Act, we are not inclined to accept the said contention inasmuch as a plain reading of Sections 21, 23 and 27 together would leave no manner of doubt that when a notice is issued to the person interested in a land as required under Section 21 of the Act, the Collector is required to adjudicate the claims to compensation and rehabilitation and resettlement by considering the claim of all such persons having interests in such land vide Section 21 of the Act. An inquiry being contemplated under Section 23 postulates that on the day so fixed for inquiry when the Collector proceeds to inquire into the objection if any filed by person/s interested pursuant to the notice issued under Section 21 such inquiry includes issues relating to measurement of the land made under Section 20; and into the value of the land at the date of publication of the notification; and into the respective interest of the persons claiming compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement. To encompass within its sweep, the entitlement of apportionment of compensation inter se amongst the interested persons as to what would be the scope of such inquiry would be in the domain of the Collector and this Court in exercise of powers vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not adjudicate upon such claims as Collector would be the fact-finding authority and also would have to undertake such exercise. On such order being made, as has been done by respondent No.2 in the instant case by passing an order on 31.12.2021, such order or said order would be susceptible for being challenged by submitting a written application submitted to the Collector who in turn is required to refer for determination of the authority as prescribed under Section 51 of the Act. A plain reading of sub-section (1) of Section 51 of the Act woul