Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
ARAVIND KUMAR, ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, JJ.
Rekhaben Shashikant Gade – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat and Others – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 1424 of 2022
Decided On : 04-08-2022
Fair Compensation - Land Acquisition - The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Section 6, Section 64, Section 76 - The court dismissed the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, stating that the petitioner's grievance about entitlement of compensation is a disputed question and should be examined by an appropriate forum under the Act. The court emphasized that the Act provides a specific redressal mechanism and the High Court cannot usurp the powers of the authority created under the Statute.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought fair compensation for the acquisition of her flat under the Land Acquisition Act, claiming to be legally entitled to it as an old member and owner at a relevant point of time. The petitioner had made representations to the authorities and approached the Court when no response was received.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's grievance about entitlement of compensation is a disputed question and should be examined by an appropriate forum under The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court emphasized that the Act provides a specific redressal mechanism and the High Court cannot usurp the powers of the authority created under the Statute.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to fair compensation for the acquisition of her flat under the Land Acquisition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Act provides a specific redressal mechanism for disputes related to compensation entitlement, and the High Court cannot adjudicate on such matters, leaving it open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum as advised and permissible in law.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
(b) Be pleased to give mandatory direction to present respondents no. 1, 2 and 5 to consider legal representations complains by present petitioner (Old member seller) in the interest of justice.
(c) Give mandatory direction to present respondents no. 1, 2 and 5 to give fair compensation @ Rs. 3,00,000/- to present petitioner (Old member - seller) holding that she is legally entitled for fair compensation on cut-off date in notification under four corners of law.
(d) Your Lordships may pass an orders of (1) to take back Rs. 3,00,000/- (including Rs. 30,000/- kept reserved in said society) from New Owner Sachin Agrawal (present respo. No. 4-new member-purchaser) and POA Ram Singh (present respo. No. 3) because sale deed of C-011 flat is dated 7/7/2020 and (2) to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- fair compensation for C-011 flat to present petitioner because as on cutoff i.e. record date of initial notification her name was on record of said society to satisfy provisions of The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and provisions of Land Acquisitions Act.
(e) Pass any order that deem fit in the interest of justice.
2. Background of facts in which present petition is brought before the Court is that petitioner (old member-seller) was possessing C-011 Flat, Anand View Apartment, Near Shahibaug Railway Crossing, Ahmedabad from 1990 till 7.7.2020. She used to pay regular maintenance of flat, paid for installation of new lift to the extent of contribution of Rs. 25,000/- painting of the building at Rs. 9,500/- and stayed there for 17 almost years and tenants had stayed for 12 years (paying regular Rs. 100/- extra in addition to maintenance per month regularly. Said flat was sold by petitioner to one Sachin Chunilal Agrawal- respondent No. 4 who became new member- purchaser with a sale deed videography through his Power of Attorney Ram Singh vide document dated 7.7.2020.
3. It is the case of petitioner that portion of land of society was acquired by Government for its Bullet Train project, Ahmedabad to Mumbai and as such, in view of the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, petitioner being an old member and owner at a relevant point of time, claimed is legally entitled to fair compensation for her settlement and rehabilitation. It has further been submitted that present possession of flat is with Sachin Chunilal Agrawal (through Power of Attorney Ram Singh), but his name was not found on cut-off date as occupier, hence he was not entitled to receive any amount of compensation and she is entitled to compensation under the provisions of the Act.
4. Petitioner is said to have submitted a representation on 5.7.2021 by attaching all necessary documents related to flat in question, i.e. C-011. Said representation was also submitted to the Chairman of the society and also representation is said to have been submitted to the highest authority, i.e. Collector as well as District Magistrate, complaining about fair compensation not being paid to her vide communications dated 19.8.2021, 7.9.2021 and 21.9.2021. Having not received any response, petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the reliefs as stated herein-before.
5. The main contention raised by learned advocate Mr. Shashikant Gade appearing for petitioner is that as on cut-off date, petitioner was owner and occupier of flat in question and as such, petitioner being owner at relevant point of time, authorities are bound to pay fair compensation, as agreed in favour of the petitioner. It has further been contended that despite repeated representations having been made, neither the authorities nor shop/ office bearers have paid any attention to her representation, which has constrained the petitio
Timely processing of compensation applications under land acquisition laws is essential for fulfilling the rights of property owners.
Post-acquisition completion, mandamus for exclusion denied; liberty granted for compensation enhancement application.
A subsequent purchaser can challenge land acquisition proceedings if they demonstrate a legal grievance, particularly where compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken under the ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
