Compensation claims require proper documentation in land acquisition processes; failure to record rightful ownership precludes entitlement.

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

1. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to issue directions to the respondent No.2 to make payment of compensation to the petitioners for the land bearing Survey No.105 admeasuring Hec – 00-77-90 Are of Village Bhagapura, Taluka Detroj – Rampura, District Ahmedabad.

2. The contention in the writ petition is that the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner namely the father of the petitioner had purchased the land in question vide registered sale deed dated 19.01.1976, however, the pencil mutation entry No.704 dated 15.04.1983 of the said registered sale deed came to be rejected on the ground that the transaction was in breach of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act , 1947.

3. The statement in the writ petition is that the said entry was straightaway canceled without granting opportunity of hearing to the father of the petitioner. However, the father of the petitioner had died on 29.04.1996, whereafter a succession entry No.959 dated 13.08.1989 came to be mutated in the revenue records with regard to the land in question. It is contended that when the succession entry was mutated with respect to the lands of the contiguous plots, it was transpired to the petitioners that the name of their father is not reflected in the revenue records with regard to survey No.105. It seems that, in the meantime, the land in question namely survey No.105 came to be acquired by the GIDC. The notice to receive compensation had been sent to the original owners namely vendors of the sale deed dated 29.04.1996.

4. It is an admitted fact of the matter that the compensation has already been paid to the landowners, whose names were recorded in the revenue records at the time of acquisition. There is no detail in the writ petition about the date of acquisition or the passing of the award for compensation in the acquisition proceedings.

5. The contention in the petition is that the petitioner was unable to challenge the action of the Mamlatdar in cancelling the mutation entry No.704 dated 15.04.1983 as they were not aware of the said order. However, they have recently challenged the action of the Mamlatdar in rejecting the said entry and the proceedings are pending before the competent authority. The copies of the objections dated 15.03.2017 and 03.04.2017 sent by the petitioners to the State of Gujarat and Special Land Acquisition Officer, GIDC are appended as Annexure ‘E’ (Colly.) to the writ petition.

6. On a query made by the Court about the proceedings initiated by the petitioner, if any, about the cancellation of mutation entry No.704 dated 15.04.1983 by the Mamlatdar, only this much is stated that now the proceedings before the Collector had been adjudicated against the petitioner.

7. Be that as it may, for the issues raised in the present petition about payment of compensation to the petitioners, namely heirs and legal representatives of the original purchaser vide registered sale deed dated 19.01.1976, entry of which has been canceled by the Mamlatdar, no positive direction can be issued.

8. As correct and complete facts have not been disclosed in the writ petition and from the averments made in the writ petition, it seems that some proceedings have been initiated by the petitioners against cancellation of entry No.704 dated 15.04.1983 by the Mamlatdar being in breach of the provisions of the Fragmentation Act, we leave it open for the petitioner to pursue the remedy available to them. For the fact that, at the time of acquisition, the names of the petitioners were not recorded in the revenue r