IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18966 of 2017 ==========================================================

HARIBHAI MALUBHAI CHAVDA & ANR.

Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

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

Appearance:

MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2 MR. MAULIK NANAVATI, ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Respondent(s) No. 2 NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 09/03/2026

ORAL ORDER

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

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The present petition has been filed originally by one person claiming to be the co-owner of the Survey/Plot No. 175 and 177, situated at Village Hariyala, Taluka & District, Kheda. However, by means of an application, another person named as Ajitsinh Sursinh Chavda has been impleaded as petitioner No.2 under the order dated 17.01.2018 passed in Civil Application (for joining party) No. 16658 of 2017.

3. The assertions in the writ petition are that the Notification dated 19.12.2012 was published under Section 3(G) of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for short “the Act, 1956”), whereunder the power has been conferred upon the respondent No.1 as the competent authority under sub- section (1) of Section 3(A) of the Act, 1956, for the purposes of the project for widening of the National Highway No. 8 (Ahmedabad-Vadodara Section). It is stated in the writ petition that in the Notification dated 19.12.2012, an area admeasuring 136 sq.meters of Survey No. 177 (total admeausring 1656 sq. Mtrs.) was sought to be acquired.

4. A public notice dated 22.02.2013 came to be issued in the daily newspaper giving description of the Notification and declaration of the satisfaction recorded by the Central Government. The contention is that as per the brief description in the Schedule to the said Notification the acquisition was made for widening of the National Highway No. 8 (Ahmedabad-Vadodara Section). The objections were raised by the affected persons and the award dated 06.09.2013 was passed under Section 3(G) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the Act, 2013”). A copy of the award is appended as Annexure ‘B’ to the writ petition.

5. There is a statement in the writ petition about the price of the acquired land determined under the award. It is then stated that the petitioner personally visited the office of the respondent No. 2 to raise specific objection regarding non- compliance of the statutory provisions and even at the time of accepting the compensation amount, they raised specific objections. We may note from the statement made in paragraph Nos. ‘3.6’ and ‘3.7’ of the writ petition that the said paragraphs have been drafted by referring the petitioners in plural though there was only one petitioner who had filed the writ petition initially. It seems that both the above noted paragraphs are copy pasted from some other writ petition.

6. The further statements in paragraph No.‘3.12’ and ‘3.13’

of the writ petition are relevant to be noted hereinunder :-

“3.12 The petitioner states that he was paid compensation as per the consent writings executed between the parties.

3.13 This petition is mainly concerning with the interest of the affected farmer whose lands are sought to be acquired and all farmers are not able to approach this Hon’ble Court. The averments made in the petition are also made to protect the interest of the persons who have not been able to approach this Hon’ble Court. If any decision i rendered in this petition, it would certainly repercussion and/or would affect the interest of all farmer, whose lands are acquired by the aid project.”

7. The bare peru