IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that failure to utilize acquired land for its intended public purpose and lack of prior government sanction for transfer are grounds for resumption under the Land Acquisition Act.

ORDER :

Sunita Agarwal, C.J.

There are two counsels appearing for the petitioner, one of whom is the learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya, who has sent a leave note and the other learned advocate-Ms. Bela Prajapati has sent a sick note today. We are not inclined to respect the leave note or sick note of the learned advocates appearing for the petitioner in view of the peculiar facts of the present case narrated in the subsequent paragraphs.

2. The ordersheet indicates that the petitioner was permitted to amend the petition incorporating two prayers in the writ petition vide order dated 21.4.2022. Two weeks’ time was granted to the petitioner to file the amended writ petition, which has never been filed by the petitioner. The ordersheet further indicates that the repeated sick notes and leave notes have been circulated by the two learned advocates appearing for the petitioner and the matter was got adjourned.

3. In view of the order dated 5.7.2023, whereby the time was granted to the learned AGP to file the affidavit-in-reply, two orders dated 07.08.2023 and 28.08.2023 had been passed granting time to the learned AGP to file affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the respondent No.2. The affidavit-in-reply has been filed in the month of September, 2023, to which the rejoinder has been filed in the month of October, 2023.

4. Be that as it may, the writ petition has been filed challenging the show-cause-notice dated 14.03.2022, which was issued for resumption of the lands allotted to the petitioner trust on the terms that the acquired land had not been utilised for the purposes for which it was allotted to the petitioner-trust. It is brought on record in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the State respondents that pursuant to the show-cause-notice dated 14.03.2022, the consequential order dated 01.04.2022 has been passed which though was sought to be challenged by way of the amendment allowed on 21.04.2022, but the amendments have not been carried out by filling the amended writ petition. The fact remains that the consequential order dated 1.4.2022 of resumption of the land-in-question in furtherance of the show-cause-notice dated 14.03.2022 remained unchallenged.

5. Proceeding further, we may record that the proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had culminated into an award dated 30.04.1962 passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereunder various parcels of land bearing Survey Nos. 167, 168, 168 p/ 1, 168 p/2, 170/p, 171/p, 179 p/2, 177, 187 p/2, 187 p/1, 188 p/1, 188 p/2, 188/3A, 188/3B, 189, 190/3, 159 p/1, 160/2 situated at village Jafarabad, Taluka Godhra, District Panchmahal came to be acquired. In Village Form No.6, the mutation entry No. 314 was carried out including the facts that the land has been acquired for the establishment of the college for fulfillment of noble object of spread of education set up by the petitioner trust. The affidavit-in-reply categorically states that the land-in-question has been acquired by the State Government to enable the petitioner trust to establish an educational institution, which has never been utilised for the purpose of acquisition and remained in the vacant state. An application under Section 36 of the Gujarat Public Trust Act, 1950 namely the application No. 36 of 2014 was filed by the petitioner trust before the Joint Charity Commissioner and an order dated 4.8.2018 had been passed permitting the petitioner trust to transfer the land-in-question. Resultantly, a gift deed has been executed by the petitioner trust in favour of the Lakulish International Fellowship Enlightenment Mission whereby certain portions of the acquired land given by the State Government for the purpose of setting up of the educational institution by the petitioner trust had been transferred to the aforesaid third party.

6. It is categorically stated that the petitioner trust had not obtained permission required under Section 44-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for transfe