Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd. vs Legal Heirs of Lakha Bijal

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Guj) 1004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.
Gujarat Sidhee Cement Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Legal Heirs of Lakha Bijal – Respondent
Special Civil Application Nos. 1038, 3192, 3194, 3195, 3203, 3204, 3205, 3207, 3208, 3209, 3210, 3211, 3212, 3213, 3214, 3215, 3216, 3217, 3218, 3219, 3220, 3221, 3222, 3223, 3224, 3225, 3226, 3227, 3228, 3229, 3230, 3231, 3232, 3233, 3234, 3235, 3236, 5879, 5936, 5983, 5984, 5985, 5986, 5988, 5989, 5991, 5992, 5994, 5995, 5996, 5997, 5998, 5999, 6000, 6001, 6002, 6005, 6006, 6007, 6008, 6009, 6010, 6012, 6013, 6014, 6015, 6016, 6018, 6019, 6020, 6021, 6022, 6023, 6024, 6025, 6027, 6029, 6030, 6033, 6035, 6037, 6040, 6041, 6043, 6044, 6045, 6046, 6048, 6052, 6057, 6058, 6059 of 2023
Decided On : 03-05-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mihir Joshi, Nikunt K. Raval.
For the Respondents: Suman Motla, Ashish M. Dagli.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, and 18 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 23 Rule 3 - Challenge to trial court’s order rejecting petitioners' application under Order 23 Rule 3 for compromise of suit - Petitioner was not a party in prior proceedings for compensation, filed application to join, and settled with landowners - Trial court deferred decision, requiring evidence and further proceedings, leading to petitioners' petitions. (Paras 1, 4, 12, 19)

(B) Compromise - Requirement for court satisfaction for recording settlements - The procedural intricacies of Order 23 Rule 3 examined, where one party alleged a settlement while the other denied, necessitating a court determination. (Paras 9, 10, 11, 19)

(C) Landowner Rights - The necessity of including acquiring body as a party in reference proceedings was emphasized with references to case law, indicating a property interest in compensation disputes. (Para 6)

(D) Finality of Proceedings - Finding restrictions under Article 227 to reevaluate trial court findings unless grave dereliction or perverse findings are evident; the trial court's authority to determine satisfaction of claims remains paramount. (Paras 17, 19) (E)

Result: Petitions dismissed; trial court directed to expedite final hearings by specified date.

Table of Content
1. amendment and challenge of orders. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. arguments regarding trial court errors. (Para 6)
3. limitations on provisions application. (Para 7 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. court’s limited jurisdiction and dismissal of petitions. (Para 18)
5. court orders for expedited resolution. (Para 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1. Draft amendment dated 17.4.2023 is allowed. The same shall be carried out forthwith. By way of these petitions, the petitioners seek to challenge the impugned orders passed below application filed under Order 23 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short) by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Veraval in respective Land Reference Cases.

2. At the joint request of learned advocates for the parties, all these petitions are being disposed of finally by this common oral judgment, as identical question of law and facts are involved in all these petitions.

3. Rule. Respective learned advocates waive service of notice of rule in respective petitions.

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Special Civil Application No. 1308 of 2023 are referred to, which are as under:

4.2 The respondent State Government, vide Section 4 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (‘the Act’ hereinafter), had initiated the acquisition proceedings of the land of the ownership of respondent nos. 1 and 2 for the purpose of mining of such land for limestone. Section 6 notification was issued on 10.5.1984 and an award under Section 11 of the Act was passed. That, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by such amount of compensation, the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had preferred reference under Section 18 of the Act by way of which the enhancement of compensation was sought.

4.3 It is averred that in the said proceedings, the petitioner was not joined as party respondent and the petitioner was not aware of such Section 18 proceedings and therefore, on coming to know about the same, the petitioner preferred application to be joined as party respondent to such proceedings, which was allowed. It is averred that, in the interregnum, the petitioner and the respondent nos. 1 and 2 had entered into a compromise by way of which the amount was paid as enhanced compensation on ex-gratia basis to late respondent nos. 1 and 2 and the petitioner was, under a bona-fide impression that the respondent nos. 1 and 2 would withdraw the proceedings for enhanced compensation, particularly, in view of what was stated during the oral examination given in consolidated proceedings on behalf of some of the applicants who has preferred Section 18 applications.

4.4 It is futher averred that the respondent nos. 1 and 2’s heirs did not show any inclination for withdrawal of the proceedings and therefore, the petitioner preferred application under Order 23 Rule 3 of the CPC, which was objected by respondent no. 1. It is in such proceedings the order impugned is passed rejecting the applications holding that the document concerned would be a subject matter of evidence and therefore the proceedings would have to be completed. Hence, these petitions are filed.

5. Heard learned senior advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi assisted by learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval for the petitioners, learned advocate Mr. Dagli for the respondents in some of the petitions and learned AGP Ms. Suman Motla for the respondent-state authorities.

6. Learned senior advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that the trial Court has committed gross error in passing such order by misreading the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3 of CPC and more particularly, the proviso of the Order 23