C/SCA/2959/2012 CAV JUDGEMNT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2959 of 2012

With

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2960 of 2012

With

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2962 of 2012

With

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3984 of 2012

With

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5839 of 2012

With

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12987 of 2012

With

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13226 of 2012

With

SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16376 of 2012

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL

and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

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

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 ?

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

AEKLAVYABHAI PUSHKARBHAI PATEL....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & 1....Respondent(s)

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

Appearance:

MR SK PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1

MR RAKESH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2

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

Page 1 of 50

C/SCA/2959/2012 CAV JUDGEMNT

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL

and

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL

Date : 14/06/2013

CAV JUDGEMNT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)

1. As in all the matters, common questions arise for

consideration, they are being considered

simultaneously.

2. We may first narrate the facts of each matter in

order to understand the factual controversy. It

would be appropriate to refer to the facts of

each case and thereafter to consider the legal

submissions.

3. Special Civil Application No.2959/12 has been

preferred by the petitioner who is having

agricultural land at block nos. 629 and 51 of

village Asodar, taluka Anklav, district Anand,

which is included in the acquisition in question

under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act”).

As per the

petitioner, notification dated 18.05.2009 has

been published on 26.06.2009 under section 4 of

the Act read with section 17(4) of the Act for

acquisition of the land in question for public

purpose of six lane road of Bagodara-Vataman-

Tarapur-Vasad. The notification under section 6

of the Act read with section 17(1) dated

13.08.2009 has been published on 17.09.2009 with

Page 2 of 50

C/SCA/2959/2012 CAV JUDGEMNT

a declaration that since the land is acquired

invoking the urgency clause, the possession of

the land would be taken after 15 days of the

notice under section 9 of the Act. Under these

circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the

petition which is sworn on 02.03.2012 for the

relief inter alia for quashing and setting aside

the aforesaid both the notifications under

section 4 as well as under section 6 of the Act.

It is the case of the petitioner that neither

compensation is paid nor possession is taken over

and there is no compliance of the mandatory

provision after delay of 2 years and 9 months,

which has vitiated the so called urgency clause

under section 17 of the Act. It is also prayed

that neither award is passed nor compensation is

paid nor there is vesting of the land and

therefore, the procee