Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N. RAY, J.

Pravinsinh Jaysinh Mangrola & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 18359 of 2013
Decided On : 15-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr MP Shah, Ms. Kruti M. Shah.
For the Respondents: Government Pleader, Kaash K. Thakkar, Mr Anuj K. Trivedi, Mr Siraj R. Gori, Siddharth R. Kheskani.

Private land cannot be utilized for public infrastructure, such as road construction or widening, without adhering to mandated land acquisition procedures and compensation. Article 300-A of the Constitution guarantees protection against state action involving unauthorized occupation or deprivation of private property.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 300-A - Right to property - Acquisition of private land for public use - Construction and widening of road over private agricultural lands without following due process of law or payment of compensation is unconstitutional - State or its instrumentalities cannot utilize private land under the garb of public interest or development without proceeding through formal acquisition - Any such action must adhere to statutory requirements to satisfy the mandate of the Constitution. (Paras 47-48)

(B) Contempt of Court - Willful and deliberate non-compliance - Interim order granting relief subject to conditions - Authorities failing to adhere to judicial directions regarding payment of rental compensation after utilizing private land for industrial transportation - Courts cannot tolerate defiance of mandates, and persistent attempts to justify unauthorized usage of land after receiving clear directions are unacceptable. (Paras 35, 44, 49, 51)

(C) Judicial Review - Fact-finding - Use of court-appointed inspecting officers for resolution of factual disputes - When official records are contested, the appointment of an inspection commission is a valid judicial exercise to verify the state of the property and determine if illegal occupation persists. (Paras 38, 41, 46)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, owners of agricultural lands, alleged that local authorities, in collusion with a commercial entity, utilized their private holdings for constructing and widening a road to facilitate heavy vehicle transportation without formal land acquisition or compensation. While authorities maintained the road was a long-standing public way, the Court previously issued an interim order directing monthly rental compensation for the unauthorized use of the land. The authorities failed to comply and subsequently filed an application to vacate the interim order, claiming no land was used.

Findings of Court:
Supported by inspection reports, the Court concluded that private lands were indeed utilized for road purposes beyond existing boundaries, with no evidence of valid acquisition. The authorities' attempt to recall the interim order was deemed an attempt to evade liability for compensation, constituting willful defiance of the Court's previous directions.

Issues: Whether private lands can be utilized for public road infrastructure without formal acquisition proceedings; the legality of road construction without compensation; and the consequences of willful disobedience of interim court-ordered compensation payments.

Ratio Decidendi: State instrumentalities cannot deprive an owner of property except by authority of law and must strictly follow prescribed acquisition processes. Utilizing private land for public road infrastructure without due process violates the protection provided by the Constitution. Furthermore, failure to adhere to judicial interim directions concerning compensation for the usage of private land constitutes a serious breach warranting punitive show-cause notices for non-compliance.

Result: Show-cause notices issued for non-compliance; interim relief remains in effect; proceedings pending final adjudication.

Table of Content
1. alleged unauthorized use of private land for public infrastructure without owner consent. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
2. public authorities justify land utilization through claims of historical existence and public necessity. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)
3. judicial oversight mechanism involving commissioner appointment to verify disputed property facts. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
4. evidentiary findings of non-compliance and judicial disapproval of misleading submissions by state officials. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
5. requirement of due process and formal acquisition proceedings for using private land under article 300-a. (Para 47 , 48)
6. accountability of public officers for willful and deliberate non-compliance with court-mandated orders. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52)

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. The present petition has been filed initially by impleading against six respondents one of whom namely the respondent no. 3 is the Executive Engineer, Road and Building Department, District Panchayat, Surat. The petitioners (6 in number) claim to be the residents of the Village Morrambli, Taluka Mangrol, District Surat and holder of the agricultural lands bearing Block No. 202, Revenue Survey No. 146, 214, Block No. 50, Revenue Survey No. 89, 90, Block No. 162, Revenue Survey No. 188, Block No. 139, Revenue Survey No. 166/1 and 166/2, Block No. 201 and Block No. 211, Revenue Survey No. 242/2 and 245 situated therein.

2. It is contended in paragraph no. ‘3’ of the writ petition that since the year 1995, several proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been initiated by the Revenue Department, Gandhinagar, for acquiring lands of various villagers of Taluka Mangrol, District Surat by citing public purpose of lignite mining for the company namely Gujarat Industries Power Company Ltd. (GIPCL), impleaded as the respondent no. 6. The list showing the acquisition of different lands of different villages by State Government from the year 1995 for the respondent no. 6 - company is appended as Annexure – ‘B’ to the writ petition.

3. The principal object of the respondent no. 6 – Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is for power generation at Surat Lignite Power Plant, Village Nani Naroli, Taluka Mangrol, District Surat.

4. Several agreements had been entered into by the respondent no. 6 – company and the Land Acquisition Officers, Surat on behalf of the Collector, Surat for expansion of its power plant and at different intervals, many lands of the farmers had been acquired.

5. The respondent no. 6 – Company had started using the private lands of the petitioners as a road for transportation of mines which are being excavated from the mine, situated at Village Bhilwada. The contention in the writ petition is that the respondent no. 6 - company is carrying out lignite mining activities from the said acquired lands situated in Village Bhaga, Taluka Valia, District Bharuch and the same is extended upto Village Bhilvada Taluka Mangrol and the fitter point of the said company’s power plant is situated at Village Nani Naroli, Taluka Mangrol, District Surat. For transporting lignite excavated from the mines of Village Bhaga and Bhilwada, the respondent no. 6 has to travel from Village Timbarwa, Harsani, Mangrol residence area, Mosali residence area, Mosali Cross roads, Shah mines and, thereafter, upto the fitter point of GIPCL situated at Village Nani Naroli.

6. A categorical statement has been made in paragraph no. ‘8’ of the writ petition that the Executive Engineer, Road and Building Department namely the respondent no. 3, in collusion with the respondent no. 6 – Company, in an absolutely illegal and high handed manner, started constructing road by utilizing the private agricultural fields of the residents of the aforesaid village for transportation of lignite, without even taking the conse

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABADSUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N. RAY, J. Pravinsinh Jaysinh Mangrola & Ors. – Petitioners Versus State Of Gujarat & Ors. – RespondentsSpecial Civil Application No. 18359 of 2013 Decided On : 15-04-2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N. RAY, J.

Pravinsinh Jaysinh Mangrola & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 18359 of 2013
Decided On : 15-04-2026