The land acquisition process is valid despite claims of forgery in records without prior objections raised during the process.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

1. By means of present petition, the petitioners seek following relief:

“7[a] to allow this petition with costs and issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order in the nature of writ, as may be deemed to be appropriate and direct the respondents not to take forcible possession of the land of Survey no.3 paiki 2 of Village Kathwa, Taluka Talaja, District Bhavnagar and further direct the respondents to strictly act in consonance with the said Award, dated 29.07.1987, passed in Land Acquisition Case No.13 of 1984 only and acquire such land, which was ordered to be acquired and for which, compensation was paid to concerned agriculturists and also direct that very heavy compensatory costs be awarded to the petitioners, who are made to rush from pillar to post, before they are made to rush to this Hon’ble Court to save their valuable land for no fault of theirs;”

2. The petitioners herein claiming to be heirs and legal representatives of Lakhabhai Baraiya seek to submit that they have inherited the agricultural land of Survey No.3 paiki 2 of Village: Kathwa, Taluka: Talaja, District: Bhavnagar, total admeasuring 0-45-70 sq. mtrs. of Kahata No.119, they are, thus, owners of the said plot, which was initially recorded in the name of their father namely, Lakhabhai Bhagwanbhai Baraiya. It is contended in the writ petition that in the acquisition proceedings for construction of Alang-Manar Bypass Road through lands of Village: Kathwa, Taluka: Talaja, District: Bhavnagar in the year 1985, the land of the predecessor of the writ petitioners viz. Survey No.3 paiki, admeasuring 0-45-70 sq. mtrs. of Khata No.119 was never acquired. The father of the writ petitioners (original owner) had never received any notice with regard to the process of acquisition nor any compensation was paid to him. The land in question remained in the possession of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners throughout and now the petitioners herein are in actual physical possession of the land in question and they are tilting the said land till date.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the name of the father of the writ petitioners namely, Lakhabhai Bhagwanbhai Baraiya was never recorded in the land acquisition proceedings, nor even the award which was passed on 29.7.1987. It is contended that though the said land was never part of the aforesaid acquisition process, but in the award, Survey No.3, admeasuring 0-39-10 sq. mtr. was included as part of the acquisition. The break-up of the same as can be seen, as forming part of the said award by way of Schedule ‘K’, names of three persons namely, (i) Mala Jetha (sic Rupsang) – 3 paiki – land acquired – 0-10-50; (ii) Vashram Jiva – 3 paiki 1 admeasuring 0-8-10; and (iii) Hamji Visa – 3 paiki – land acquired – 0-20-50, have been shown to have been included, making total area of acquired land of Survey No.3 paiki as 0-39-10. It is contended that neither Mala Jetha nor Hamji Visa, who are shown to be the tenor holders of land of Survey No.3 paiki, ever possessed or owned any such land. In fact, the lands of their ownerships were 2 paiki 2/2 and 8 paiki 7/2; respectively. Further, from Survey No.3 paiki 1/2, only an area of 0-8-10 belonging to aforesaid Vashram Jiva was acquired, which can also be co-related from Village Form No.8-A. The land admeasuring 0-10-50 of Survey No.2 paiki 2/2 belonging to Mala Jetha (sic Rupsang), out of total area of 0-60-70 was acquired. Similarly, Survey No.8 paiki 7/2 area 0-20-50 belonging to Hamji Visa was part of the acquisition. It is, thus