Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1230
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, MOOL CHAND TYAGI, JJ.
Ahmed Abhram Vali Deceased & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. - Respondent
Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 1 of 2025 In R/First Appeal No. 3132 of 2024
Decided On : 04-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Nirad D Buch, Mr. Sajid M Kothia
For the Respondent: Mr Siddharth Rami, AGP, Mr YN Ravani
Owners of a property may join land acquisition proceedings even if they previously consented to a power of attorney, as long as their property rights are at stake.
Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 4, 6, and 30 - Impleadment of parties in appeal - Applicants, owners of land survey no. 426/paiki/1, entitled to join as respondents despite earlier actions, as both parcels of land were part of the same acquisition proceedings - Court allows joining for necessary adjudication. (Paras 4, 5, 14, and 17)
(B) Necessity of separate proceedings - Authority failed to initiate separate proceedings for two parcels of land despite them being clearly divided, leading to procedural irregularity - Compensation claims must be properly apportioned. (Paras 4.1 and 4.2)
(C) Inapplicability of precedent - Court distinguishes prior case law, asserting that different facts apply and the applicants have legitimate claims to the land acquired for public purpose. (Paras 15 and 16)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. arguments regarding the procedural validity of claims (Para 2 , 5 , 8) |
| 2. notification served under land acquisition act (Para 4 , 10) |
| 3. court's analysis of legal precedents and applicability (Para 6 , 7 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 4. criteria for party joinder in land acquisition disputes (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. final order on the applicants' joinder (Para 17 , 18) |
ORDER :
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.
1. By this application, the applicants, have prayed for being impleaded as respondent nos.2 to 12 in the captioned first appeal.
2. At the outset, Mr. Nirad D. Buch, learned advocate upon instructions, states that he would not press following prayer clause 6(C) with a liberty to approach the Collector as per the provisions of Section 30 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’).
(C) “Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this application, the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Original Respondents herein to deposit Rs.2,30,36,918 along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Bharuch in accordance with their undertaking dated 18.01.2025 (ANNEXURE.K).”
3. The prayer clause 6(C), is not pressed with a liberty to the applicants, to approach the competent authority as permissible and in accordance with law.
4. Mr. Nirad D. Buch, learned advocate, while taking this Court to the documents placed on the record, submitted that Section 4 notification, was issued somewhere in the month of December, 2010 with respect to land bearing survey no.426. The total land was around 29,138 sq. mts. As per the survey, the land, was divided into two parts, namely 426/paiki/1 admeasuring 12,546 sq. mts. and 426/paiki/2 admeasuring 16,592 sq. mts. It is submitted that the total land acquired as per Section 4 notification, was to an extent of 5,005 sq. mts. It is submitted that the land plan schedule, though mentions both the survey numbers, namely 426/paiki/1 and 426/paiki/2, the area of only survey no.426/paiki/2, has been mentioned, while area against the land bearing survey no.426/paiki/1, is left nil. However, it is not in dispute that the total land acquired for survey no.426, was 5,005 sq. mts. of land, which pertains to both the survey nos.426/paiki/1 and 426/paiki/2.
4.1 It is further submitted that it was the bounden duty of the authorities, to have initiated two separate proceedings for both the parcels of land, namely survey no.426/paiki/1 and 426/paiki/2 admeasuring 2,581.48 sq. mts. and 2,423.52 sq. mts. respectively. The 7/12 forms, are separate with respect to both the survey numbers, namely 426/paiki/1 and 426/paiki/2 and therefore, there was no reason available to the respondent authorities, to have consolidated both the survey numbers and conducted the proceedings in common.
4.2 It is further submitted that Section 4 notification, was followed by Section 6 notification(page no.24) and at page no.33, the schedule of the land intended to be acquired, is mentioned wherein, against the survey no.426, the approximate area of the land acquired, has been mentioned to the extent of 5,005 sq. mts. Even the notices issued under Section 9, is with respect to survey no.426 admeasuring 5,005 sq. mts. indicating the names of both the owners, namely, Ahmed Abhram Vali and Saieed Ahmed Ibrahim. Even the notice for hearing, which was issued, was in the name of both the claimants and was duly signed. It is further submitted that Section 11 award, was passed by the land acquisition officer, qua 5,005 sq. mts. Even the reference is filed by the claimants with respect to 5,005 sq. mts. of survey no.426. It is further submitted that it appears that on the basis of the consent letter given by the applicants and power of attorney of applicant no.12, that the original claimant received the amount of the compensation. It is submitted that the reference, was filed in respect of whole of the land of survey no.426 admeasuring 5,005 sq. mts. which is clear from paragraph 3 of the
