ORAL ORDER

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

This is a wholly misconceived petition filed by the power of attorney holder of the erstwhile owners of Survey No. 1091 of area admeasuring 4.29 acres, whose land had been acquired for the purpose of Gandhinagar Capital City Project as early as in the year 1965.

2. The present writ petition is filed with the prayer that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the State Government to treat the land bearing Survey No. 1091 (1.02 Acres) situated at village Pethapur, Taluka-District Gandhinagar as a freehold land of the absolute ownership of the petitioners herein, as the said plot has not been acquired by the State under any law prevalent and with the contention that the petitioners are in lawful and legal ownership and possession of the land-in-question and have rights to enjoy uninterrupted/undisturbed possession of the same. The prayer has further been made to restrain the respondents from interfering in the possession of the petitioners over the land-in-question. The petitioners have joined the State through the Secretary, Road and Building Department and the State authorities such as the Secretary, Revenue Department, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Gandhinagar, the Collector, Gandhinagar and Gandhinagar Urban and Development Authority as also Gandhinagar Municipal Corporation as the respondents, but there is no clarity in the petition as to who was disturbing the possession of the petitioner at the time of institution of the writ petition.

3. The contention in the writ petition relevant to be noted herein is that the petitioners are the owners and in possession of Survey No. 1091 admeasuring area 1.02 acres, which land has never been acquired as per the statement made in the writ petition and the further contention is that till date, the land-in-question is in the ownership and possession of the petitioners and they are enjoying uninterpreted and peaceful possession of area 1.02 acres of Survey No. 1091 since the year 1952. It is stated in paragraph No. 3.2 of the writ petition that all of a sudden, the petitioners came to know that Entry No. 1174/75 and K.J.P.S.R. 1174/75 dated 13.08.1975 had been entered into the revenue records, whereby the name of the Executive Engineer has been incorporated in respect of the land-in- question. A vague assertion has been made in para No. 3.2 of the writ petition that the said fact came to the notice and knowledge of the petitioners when they requested for copy of the revenue records for putting in their own names in the records. There is no clarity as to why and when the petitioners, who as per their claim are the owners in possession of the land-in-question would require to make enquiry for entering their names in the revenue records. No date of knowledge or notice of the entry dated 13.8.1975 has been indicated in the writ petition.

3.1 A vague assertion has been made in the para No. 3.3 of the writ petition that the land-in-question has never been acquired by the State nor the petitioners have received any notice for acquisition of the said land-in-question and it was only 3.26 acres of Survey No. 1091 which was duly acquired by the State. It was contended that the rest of 1.02 acres has been in the ownership and possession of the petitioners since the year 1953/1954.

4. There is reference of various communications made by the petitioners with the Executive Engineers, which too in turn made communication with the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the matter of award/acquisition/release of land-in-question namely Survey No. 1091 area 1.02 Acres. Attention of the court is invited to page ‘51’ of the paper-book, which is a communication dated 23.10.2013 made by the Executive Engineer to the petitioner No.1 namely Kantibhai Joitaram Patel, wherein there is a statement that no award has been made with respect to Survey No. 1091 area 1.02 Acres. A further communication dated 1.9.2014 by the Executive E