Back
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
MR. R.S. GARG, J
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
GAURIBEN MANISHANKER MEHTA & ORS. – Respondent
SECOND APPEAL No. 115 of 2005 | CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4842 OF 2005
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SHRI L.R. PUJARI
For the Respondents: SHRI P.V. HATHI, SHRI NIRZAR S. DESAI
Claimants cannot challenge land acquisition after accepting compensation; government land use is discretionary post-acquisition.
Headnote:The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 governs the acquisition of land by the Government for public purposes. Plaintiffs were dispossessed of lands after they accepted the compensation without contest. The court analyzed the maintainability of the suit based on past precedents and determined the government's right to allocate land post-acquisition. The substantial question of law was whether a challenge could be made against the acquisition's correctness when the property was vested in the State. The court found that such suits are not maintainable, affirming that once acquisition is complete and compensation accepted, challenging the government's subsequent use of land is prohibited. The appeal was allowed, overturning the lower courts' rulings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of land acquisition and plaintiffs' dispossession. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments on maintainability of the plaintiffs' suit. (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 3. court observations on legal precedents regarding land acquisition. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. determination on suit’s maintainability. (Para 7) |
| 5. final decision on the appeal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
JUDGEMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SECOND APPEAL No. 115 of 2005 With CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4842 OF 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. - Appellant(s) Versus GAURIBEN MANISHANKER MEHTA & ORS. - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : SHRI L.R. PUJARI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Appellant(s). SHRI P.V. HATHI for SHRI NIRZAR S. DESAI for Respondent(s). ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.GARG Date : 11/12/2006 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The respondents-plaintiffs, owners of land bearing Survey No.59 admeasuring 3 Acres - 27 Gunthas and 2/7 JUDGMENT lands bearing Survey No.60 admeasuring 4 Acres – 35 Gunthas and Survey No.61/3 admeasuring 4 Acres – 18 Gunthas, were dispossessed from the said lands in view of the Notification under Section 4 and a declaration made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 (“the Act” for short).
1.1 The plaintiffs did not contest the matter at the time of acquisition and felt happy and content with the compensation awarded to them. After completion of the land acquisition proceedings, the property vested in the Government free from encumbrances and charges. After some time of the acquisition, the State Government granted the land on lease to the Gujarat Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited (“GROFED” for short). The plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the change of user and allotment of land in favour of the GROFED, filed Regular Civil Suit No.761 of 1987 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bhavnagar for declaration and possession.
1.2 The defendant-State appeared in the suit, filed a detailed written statement and raised various issues relating to maintainability of the suit, limitation, vesting of land in the State, etc. It was submitted that 3/7 JUDGMENT once the land vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances, then, the State would be entitled to dispose of the land in a manner in which other properties of the State can be disposed of.
1.3 The learned trial Court, however, decreed the suit and as Regular Civil Appeal No.123 of 1995 filed by the State and others, was dismissed on 28th May, 1995 by the learned Joint District Judge (Fast Track Court No.1), Bhavnagar, the defendants-appellants are before this Court.
2. The appeal was admitted on 7th November, 2006 for hearing the parties on the following substantial questions of law:
- “1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the suit filed by the present respondent–plaintiff was maintainable even when acquisition proceedings came to be concluded in the year 1958, the respondent had received compensation and the property vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances? circumstances of the case non-joinder of the allottee from the State of Gujarat, namely, GROFED, would be fatal to the 4/7 JUDGMENT maintainability of the suit?”
3. Shri Puj
