Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 1867
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.
Daiben Chaturbhai Prajapati & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 1678 of 2024
Decided on : 02-12-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR RAKESH R PATEL
For the Respondent: MS. HETAL PATEL, MR RUTVIJ S OZA, MS HARSHAL N PANDYA, MR. G. M. JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR OFFICER –DY.EXEC.ENGINEER (IN PERSONAL CAPACITY)
IMPORTANT POINT
The authority to release acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act lies solely with the State Government, and attempts to withdraw land post-acquisition are impermissible.
Headnote:
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 48(1) - Petitioners sought release of land acquired under the Act, arguing no canal passes through it and returned compensation. The court found the officer's actions to withdraw land acquisition were without jurisdiction and the petitioners acted in connivance with officials. (Paras 5, 17, 24)
(B) Jurisdiction - The authority to release acquired land lies solely with the State Government, not the acquiring body. (Paras 17, 22)
(C) Good faith - The petitioners' actions were deemed to reflect a mala fide intention to reclaim land unlawfully. (Paras 25, 26)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners requested the release of land, alleging no canal presence, and returned compensation received.
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming the acquisition process was final and jurisdictional authority was misused.
Issues: The court addressed the legality of the withdrawal of land acquisition and the authority's jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that once acquisition proceedings conclude, requests for release are impermissible, and jurisdiction lies with the State Government.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Perused the affidavit dated 13.09.2024 of the officer working as Assistant Engineer, Narmada Yojana Main Canal, Sub Division No. 3/1, Chanasama, wherein an unconditional apology has been tendered for the statement made in the affidavit dated 11.03.2024 filed by the officer, which was found to be misleading and deceptive by the Court.
2. It is submitted by the officer concerned that such statement was made due to lack of experience in the land acquisition matters. Moreover, the communication, which was found misinterpreted by the then Deputy Executive Engineer, as found by this Court, was made by his predecessor and the officer namely the deponent of the affidavit had been given charge of the post of Deputy Executive Engineer only on 06.01.2024.
3. Noticing the above, we accept the apology tendered by the officer on oath making a statement that the contents of the affidavit dated 11.03.2024 were sworn by him without having due knowledge and understanding of land acquisition matters. The officer concerned, however, is directed to remain careful in future and should not make any attempt to file any affidavit in the Court without understanding the position of law pertaining to the matter.
4. The show-cause notice issued to the officer by means of the order dated 30.07.2024 is hereby discharged.
5. Coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein seek for the release of the land in question namely Survey No. 503/2 situated at Village Asjol, Ta: Becharaji, Dist. Mehsana admeasuring 3358 sq.mts, under the provisions of Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act’ 1894, on the premise that there is no canal passing from a substantial part of the said land and compensation amount received by the petitioners has been returned to the competent authority as per the letter received from the office of Respondent No.7 namely Deputy Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojana, Main Canal Division No: 19/5, Patan.
6. The stand of the petitioners in the writ petition on the basis of a letter dated 18.09.2002, which is appended at Page ‘38’ of the Paperbook, is that the Deputy Executive Engineer (Narmada Yojana, Main Canal Division 19/5) namely the Respondent No.7 herein, by means of the said communication asked the petitioner to deposit back the compensation amount received by him stating that on a joint measurement of the acquired land, it was found that an error has been committed by wrongly acquiring the land in Survey No. 503/2 instead of land in Survey No. 503/3 of Village Asjol, Dist. Mehsana.
7. The stand of the petitioners in the writ petition is that pursuant to the said communication, the petitioners had returned the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.16,259.90 by way of a cheque dated 14.10.2002 issued in the name of the Deputy Executive Engineer (Narmada Yojana, Main Canal Division No.19/5) namely the Respondent No.7 herein.
8. Having noticed the position of law that the officer of the acquiring body namely the Deputy Executive Engineer (Narmada Yojana) namely the Respondent No.7 herein was not competent to take any decision for withdrawal of the land in question from acquisition and ask his action in the petitioners to refund the amount of compensation was without jurisdiction, by order dated 02.02.2024, we required the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent No.7 to verify from the original record as to how and in what manner, the letter dated 15.09.2002 had been issued to the petitioner. The statement of the petitioners for return of the compensation amount vide Cheque dated 14.10.2002 was also required to be verified and the personal affidavit of the Respondent No.7 – the Deputy Executive Engineer (Narmada Yojana, Main Canal Division No. 19/5) was to be filed.
9. The affidavit dated 11.03.2024 had been filed in response to our order dated 02.02.2024, wherein the officer working incharge of the Deputy Executive Engineer sought t
