Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 1590
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sunita Agarwal, CJ, D.N. Ray, J
PATEL PUSHPABEN NAGARDASV/sSTATE OF GUJARAT
C/SCA/2665/2026 | R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2665 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: AV Prajapati
For the Respondents: Maithili Mehta, Rituraj M Meena, Anuj K. Trivedi
The case addresses the obligation of an acquiring authority to either return land acquired temporarily under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or complete permanent acquisition proceedings when the temporary period expires.
Headnote:The petitioner seeks the restoration of land situated at Village Piplaj, Gandhinagar, which was temporarily acquired by ONGC in 1993 under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner, who purchased the land in 2006, contends that the temporary acquisition period has expired and the land should be returned as the well is no longer operational. The primary issue is whether the respondent is obligated to return the land or proceed with permanent acquisition under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, given that a previous petition was disposed of as infructuous based on a communication that permanent acquisition proceedings had commenced, yet no such proceedings were completed. As prayed, put up this matter on 10.03.2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of temporary land acquisition and subsequent transfer of ownership. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. statutory limits on temporary land possession and the effect of previous litigation. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. requirement for administrative instructions to determine the status of land restoration or permanent acquisition. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Mr.Anuj K. Trivedi, the learned advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent – ONGC. Ms.Maithili Mehta, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. The petitioner herein raises a grievance with regard to the inaction on the part of the ONGC in considering the grievances of the petitioner, either to acquire the land in question to pay compensation to him or return it after restoration in accordance with the policy of the ONGC.
3. The contention in the writ petition is that the original Survey No.565 was bifurcated and treated as survey No.565 / 2 (new Survey No. / Block No.726) admeasuring 01 – 34 – 35 Hector-Are-Guntha, out of which land admeasuring 01 – 09 – 33 Hector-Are-Guntha situated at Village Piplaj, Taluka & District Gandhinagar had been acquired temporarily by the ONGC in the year 1993 in accordance with the provisions of Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act’ 1894 for the purpose of ONGC Project Drilling No.LMAN – PIPLAJ.
4. The compensation for the temporary acquisition was determined in LAQ No. 01 of 1993 by an award passed on 16.02.1993. The petitioner herein had purchased the land in question on 23.11.2006 by a registered sale deed No.11830 and claimed absolute ownership over the subject land. It is also stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has received rent fixed by the ONGC from time to time and is getting the rent as on today, as well.
5. The further contention in the writ petition is that as per Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act’ 1894, the ONGC cannot retain possession of the subject land for more than three years and the Well in the subject land was not in operation and hence, the petitioner issued a notice through his advocate in January’ 2011, requesting ONGC to release the subject land and retain the same to the petitioner.
6. No response was given by the ONGC and hence, the Special Civil Application No.5026 of 2011 was filed before this Court seeking for a direction to return the subject land to the petitioner. The order dated 29.09.2011 of disposal of the said writ petition at page No.38’ of the paper-book has been placed before us by Mr.A. V. Prajapati, the learned counsel for the petitioner to submit that during the course of hearing, the ONGC / respondent No.6 represented by the learned Senior Counsel as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents drew attention of the Court to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent State and a communication dated 27.09.2011, to assert that the proceedings for publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act’ 1894 had been commenced.
7. Taking note of the communication dated 27.09.2011, this Court had disposed of the writ petition as having become infructuous while discharging the notice to the ONGC.
8. The contention in the writ petition that though a proposal for permanent acquisition was sent by ONGC on 18.01.2011, reference of which can be found in the letter of ONGC appended at page No. ‘45’ of the paper-book, but no proceedings, whatsoever, had been conducted thereafter. On the representations made by the petitioner from time to time, no answer was given and hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.
9. It is further stated that as of now, the petitioner is not interested in getting the compensation but prays to return the subject land by restoration of the same to its original possession.
10. Taking note of the above, we require Mr.Anuj K. Trivedi, the learn
