IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2777 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ==================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No √

==================================================

LAXMANBHAI LAKHABHAI GORA SAVA & ORS.

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

==================================================

Appearance:

MR GM AMIN(124) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 MS HETAL PATEL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent No. 1 MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 13/02/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

Heard Mr. G.M. Amin, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.

Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State – respondent and Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed by seven persons claiming to be owners and occupants of land bearing Survey No. 165 paiki, 166 paiki and 167 paiki situated in the sim of Village Navda, Taluka - Barvada District : Ahmedabad. The challenge in the writ petition is to the Notifications dated 21.10.2010 and 29.03.2011 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1894”). The sole ground of challenge to the validity of the acquisition notifications, as agitated in the writ petition, is invocation of the Urgency Clause under Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894, whereby the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 had been dispensed with. The grounds taken in the writ petition were that with the invocation of the Urgency Clause, the petitioners had been denied opportunity of filing objection and there was no occasion for denial of opportunity, inasmuch as, only 30 days time was to be provided for filing of the objection. An invaluable right of the petitioners for filing objection in a case of compulsory acquisition has been taken away without any justification on the part of the State respondent.

2.1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, is that the acquisition proceedings conducted with the publication of the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 in the year 2010-11 is nothing but a fraud on the exercise of power on the part of the State respondent. The denial of opportunity of filing objection which is a valuable right of the land owners would result in violation of the Constitutional provisions and the result is that the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 are liable to be struck down.

3. Taking aid of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra Kumar & Ors., reported in (2022) 13 SCC 468, in a matter of acquisition for planned industrial development through Noida by invocation of Urgency Clause under Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894 for dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, 1894, it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a via-media was adopted by the High Court of Allahabad in granting compensation to the land owners in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2013”), when the High Court found that the acquisition proceedings were conducted illegally by invocation of the Urgency Clause.

4. Reliance is further placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited & Ors., v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2017) 11 SCC 339; Savitri Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2015)