1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI WRIT PETITION Nos.57605-57612 OF 2015(LA-HS) BETWEEN : 1. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.Late [ENTITY], Aged about 62 years. 2. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.Late [ENTITY], Aged about 60 years. 3. Smt.[ENTITY], S/o.Late [ENTITY], Aged about 57 years. 4. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.Late [ENTITY], Aged about 55 years. 5. Sri [ENTITY] S/o.Late [ENTITY], Aged about 53 years. 6. Smt.[ENTITY], D/o.Late [ENTITY], Aged about 51 years. 7. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.Late [ENTITY], Aged about 53 years. 2 8. [ENTITY], S/o.Late [ENTITY], Aged about 47 years. All are residing at Vajarahalli Village, Uttarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore. Petitioners (By Sri [ENTITY] for Sri [ENTITY], Advocate) AND: 1. [ENTITY], Represented by its Secretary, Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. 2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, 3rd Floor, Podium Block, Vishveshwaraiah Tower, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore - 560 001. 3. The Bangalore City Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. Seethapathi Agrahara, Chamarajpet, Bangalore - 560 018. 4. The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority, T.Chowdaiah Road, Bangalore - 560 020. 5. [ENTITY], Aged about 72 years, S/o.Late Sonnappa, R/at No.220, 3 7th 'B' Cross, Shastry Nagar, Bangalore - 28. 6. [ENTITY], W/o.[ENTITY], Aged about 56 years, R/at Gubbalala, Subramanyapura Post, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore - 560 061. 7. [ENTITY], S/o.[ENTITY], Aged 59 years, R/o.No.722/29, Roopasri 15th 'A' Main, Mathikere, Bangalore - 560 054. 8. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.[ENTITY], Age 51 years, R/o.No.1017, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. 9. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.[ENTITY], Age 38 years, R/o.No.982, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. 10. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.[ENTITY], Age 38 years, R/o.No.982, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, Bangalore South Taluk. 4 11. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.[ENTITY], Age 34 years, R/o.No.996, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore. 12. [ENTITY], S/o.Sri [ENTITY], Age 56 years, R/o.No.996, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore - 560 062. 13. [ENTITY], S/o.Sri [ENTITY], Age 64 years, R/o.No.1051, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore - 560 062. 14. [ENTITY], S/o.Sri [ENTITY], Age 37 years, R/o.Flat No.104, Siri Springs 29th Main, 40th Cross, Poornapragna Layout, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bangalore - 560 061. 15. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.Sri [ENTITY], Age 68 years, R/o.No.1052, BCCHS Layout, Vajarahalli, Kanakapura Road, Bangalore - 560 062. 16. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.Late [ENTITY], Age 52 years, R/o.No.51, 1st Floor, 5 Vinayaka Layout, Vijayanagar North, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore - 560 079. 17. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.Late Sri [ENTITY], Age 41 years, R/o.No.F-3, VR Apartments, Opp. Rapshree Engineering Garudanapalya, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bangalore. 18. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.Late Gundurao, Age 65 years, R/o.No.1077G, Sri [ENTITY], Sarakki, J.P.Nagar 1st Phase, Bangalore - 560 078. 19. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.Late [ENTITY], Age 74 years, R/o.No.1077G, Sri [ENTITY], J.P.Nagar 1st Phase, Bangalore - 560 078. 20. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.late [ENTITY], Age 61 years, R/o.No.12077G, Sri [ENTITY], J.P.Nagar 1st Phase, Bangalore - 560 078. 21. Sri [ENTITY], S/o.Sri [ENTITY], Age 50 years, R/o.No.9/6, BMP No.76, Brindavan Layout, Chikkallasandra, 6 Subramanyapura Post, Bangalore - 560 061. Respondents (By Sri [ENTITY], AGA and Sri [ENTITY], AGA for R1 and R2: Sri [ENTITY], Senior Advocate for Sri [ENTITY], Advocate for R3: Sri [ENTITY], Advocate for R4: Sri [ENTITY] for Sri [ENTITY], Advocate for R5: Sri [ENTITY], Advocate for R6: Sri [ENTITY], Advocate for R7 to R21) These writ petitions are filed under [SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] praying to declare that the preliminary notification dated 23.8.1988 issued under [SECTION] and published in Karnataka Gazette as per annexure-A, and final notification issued under [SECTION] of the [ACT] published in Karnataka Gazette dated 25.9.1989 as per Annexure-B so far as petitioners land bearing Sy.No.51 measuring 4 acres 30 guntas situated at Vajarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk has lapsed in view of [SECTION] of the Act, 30/13 and also law declared by the Apex Court and etc. These writ petitions, coming on for preliminary hearing 'B' Group, this day, the Court made the following: ORDER
The petitioners are seeking the relief of declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land measuring 4 acres 30 guntas at Sy.No.51 of Vajarahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk have lapsed.
2. Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the preliminary notification and the final notifications were issued on 23.08.1988 and 25.09.1989 respectively and that the award was passed on 23.06.1990. But no amounts whatsoever are released to the petitioners. He submits that the Assistant Commissioner, vide his letter, dated 15.11.1990 (Annexure-R4) addressed to the Revenue Secretary has quantified the total amounts payable towards the compensation as Rs.1,85,47,231/-. He submits that the said letter itself shows that out of Rs.1,85,47,231/-, the payment made by the beneficiary is only Rs.1,44,35,622.50. He submits that the said letter states that the direct payments are made to the GPA holder to the tune of Rs.60,99,250/-. He submits that the petitioners have not executed any general power of attorney in favour of anybody in respect of the lands in question. He further submits that neither the petitioners nor their father had authorized anybody to receive the compensation on their behalf.
3. He submits that the possession of the lands in question is with the petitioners only. He relies on the photographs in Annexure 'G' series for showing the status of the lands in question. He relies on the Apex Court's judgment in the case of [PRECEDENT] for advancing the submission that if the compensation amounts are not paid, the acquisition proceedings are liable to be declared as lapsed under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. He also relies on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] passed in [CASE NUMBER] C/w. [CASE NUMBER] disposed of on 13.04.2017. He submits that the Division Bench has returned a categorical finding that a middleman, one [ENTITY] conducted himself as if he is the owner of the land and entered into a purported agreement with the third respondent Society. He submits that the fraud has been played by the middleman. Para 15 of the said judgment read out by the learned counsel is extracted hereinbelow:
"15. In all the cases where acquisitions have been found to be tainted on account of involvement of middleman, who, by using his financial power, had influenced the Government in the decision making process for acquiring the lands, and where the mandatory requirements of [SECTION] of the said Act, requiring framing of scheme and prior approval by the Government were absent, the entire acquisition had been quashed. In the cases on hand, [ENTITY] has been the Managing Partner of Rajendra Enterprises, and he acted as the middleman. He was engaged for influencing the Government for the purpose of acquiring the lands in question. A general power of attorney and affidavits were executed in favour of said [ENTITY]. A bare perusal of the affidavits and the general power of attorney indicates that the land owners were virtually illiterate people; many of them had put their left thumb impression in both the general power of attorney and the affidavits. Some of them had signed. However, on perusal of the signatures and their style of subscribing the signatures clearly indicate that the land owners were virtually illiterate and rustic village people. It is apparent, therefore, that fraud has been perpetrated upon the land owners. An indemnity bond was executed by the said [ENTITY] in favour of the State. In the indemnity bond, the said [ENTITY] claimed himself that he had been the owner of the lands and the society permitted him to execute the indemnity and to collect the compensation from the Government. It is, thus, clear that the middleman, namely, the said [ENTITY], entered into a purported agreement with the society, influenced the Government and received the compensation. The land owners did not receive the compensation and the consent given by the said [ENTITY], by virtue of his power of attorney and the affidavits, has been a product of fraud."
4. He submits that the land acquisition proceedings and the award proceedings are full of infirmities. They are not done in a manner known to law. [SECTION] of the [ACT] ('[ACT]' for short) requires that the consent to pass the award has to be in the prescribed form. [SECTION] of the [ACT] specify the form of agreement (Form No.D). Form/statement containing the consent of the landowners is not produced by the respondents.
5. He relies on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of [PRECEDENT]. Paragraph Nos. 131 and 134 read out by him, are as follows:
"131. The respondents could not have produced any direct evidence that the Estate Agent had paid money for facilitating the acquisition of land but it is not too difficult for any person of reasonable prudence to presume that the appellant had parted with crores of rupees knowing fully well that a substantial portion thereof will be used by the Estate Agent for manipulating the State apparatus. Therefore, we do not find any justification to invoke the doctrine of prospective overruling and legitimise what has been found by the Division Bench of the High Court to be ex facie illegal.
134. At the same time, we make it clear that the appellant must return the vacant land to the respondents irrespective of the fact that it may have carved out the sites and allotted the same to its members. This must be done within a period of three months from today and during that period the appellant shall not change the present status of the vacant area/sites. The members of the appellant who may have been allotted the sites shall also not change the present status/character of the land."
6. Sri [ENTITY], learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri [ENTITY] for the respondent No.3 submits that the petitioners' father and other landowners had filed [CASE NUMBER] raising the challenge to the acquisition proceedings. The learned Single Judge by his order, dated 12.04.1996 (Annexure-R5) dismissed the said petitions. He submits that the dismissal of the writ petitions was challenged by the petitioners' father in [CASE NUMBER] and [CASE NUMBER], but without any rate of success. He submits that the land acquisition is upheld by the learned Single Judge, Division Bench and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners' father [ENTITY] had given the consent to the passing of the award at Annexure-R1. He brings to my notice that the petitioners' father acknowledges the receipt of the compensation amount (voucher at Annexure R23). He submits that the voucher signed by the first petitioner is at Annexure-R26. He submits that the relevant pages of the passbook are collectively produced as Annexure R41 and that their perusal shows that the compensation-amount was credited to the account of [ENTITY] and his brother [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]'s son [ENTITY]. He submits that the earlier writ petitions ([CASE NUMBER]) were dismissed accepting the version of the respondent No.3 on how the compensation amounts were calculated and how they were disbursed.
8. Sri [ENTITY] submits that in the earlier round of litigation, [ENTITY], under whom the present petitioners claim, has admitted that the power of attorney was indeed executed. There is also admission that the compensation- amounts were received by them. It is not the case of the petitioners that the power of attorney was subsequently revoked. He submits that [ENTITY]'s family members have totally received the compensation-amount of Rs.7,79,000/-, although they were entitled to receive only Rs.2,85,000/- under the consent award. He submits that in the present petition the petitioners are making misleading and inconsistent statements. He submits that the payments have been directly made by the third respondent.
9. Neither the petitioners nor their father have filed the suit for raising the challenge to the power of attorney arrangement or to seek the relief of declaration that they have not consented to the passing of the award.
10. He submits that the possession of the lands in question was taken over long ago and that [SECTION] notification (Anneure-R2) was issued on 19.04.1991. He submits that by the very operation of law the same is conclusive proof of taking over the possession pursuant to the acquisition notifications.
11. He submits that the layout-plan is approved by the B.D.A. on 07.12.2000 and that the work-order, dated 03.03.2001 (Annexure-R3) was also issued. He submits that 81 sites are already allotted by the Society to its members and that some of the members have got the plan sanctioned by the B.B.M.P. and have constructed the buildings also. When third party interests have come in, the acquisition proceedings cannot be deemed to have been lapsed at this juncture.
12. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners are guilty of suppression of material facts. They have not disclosed the receipt of the amounts by virtue of the consent award. He submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of [PRECEDENT]. (supra) does not come to the rescue of the petitioners in any way as in the said case the directions are issued to those who are parties to the [CASE NUMBER] and other connected petitions.
13. He submits that the acquisition proceedings cannot be interfered with on the ground that the consent award is not in the prescribed form. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of [PRECEDENT] has held that the agreements are not in the prescribed form or that they were not signed before a particular authority, cannot be the grounds for interfering in the acquisition matters. He submits that in the said reported case the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation also directly entered into the agreement with the owners, who had agreed to part possession of their lands after taking certain amounts of compensation. It is further held therein that the form prescribed by the Rules would not be relevant in a case where the agreement is between the owners and the interested persons on the one hand and the beneficiary of acquisition on the other hand.
14. Sri [ENTITY], the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 to 21 submits that the allottees of the sites were indeed made parties to the writ petition in the earlier round of litigation. For the reasons best known to the petitioners, they have not arraigned the allottees as the respondents to these petitions. He also takes exception to the petitioners making all kinds of allegations against [ENTITY] but not making him a party. He submits that if the payments are made to the power of attorney holder, it is valid payment. On the ground that the payments are not made to the principal, no writ petition is entertainable. He read out the averments made in paragraph No.3 of the memorandum of the writ petition admitting the execution of the power of attorney. The averment reads as follows: "Power of attorney was given only after declaration was issued and not earlier".
15. He submits that based on the records-verification, the learned Single Judge, by his order, dated 12.4.1996 (Annexure- R5 to the third respondent's statement of objections) in [CASE NUMBER] has delivered a categorical finding that the possession was taken on 12.10.1991. He submits that the said order is upheld by the Division Bench and thereafter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He asserts that compensation is paid to the land-owners and/or their power of attorney holder and that the possession is made over to the Government, as is evident from the notification issued under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
16. Sri [ENTITY], the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the layout was approved vide [ENTITY]'s resolution, dated 7.12.2000 and that the work order was issued on 3.3.2001. He submits that in respect of the lands at Survey No.51, totally 89 sites of different dimensions are permitted to be formed and that out of them, [ENTITY] has released 53 sites.
17. Sri [ENTITY], the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the amounts payable under the consent award in respect of the land at Sy.No.51 are Rs.2,86,330/-. He submits that the said amount has been paid by the third respondent Society and that the said amounts are disbursed to the persons, who are entitled to receive.
18. Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the respondent No.5 submits that the respondent No.5 has filed [CASE NUMBER] for partition. He submits that it is the fifth respondent's anxiety that any order which this Court may pass in these proceedings may impact the said pending suit.
19. In the course of rejoinder, Sri [ENTITY], learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vouchers produced by the respondents in support of the claim that the amounts are disbursed to the concerned persons is not at all traceable to the consent award. He submits that the remittance of the amounts into the accounts of some parties is pursuant to the sale agreement entered into between the landowners and [ENTITY], the proprietor of M/s.Rajendra Enterprises. He submits that the said [ENTITY] is a middleman, who appears to have taken all the amounts. He submits that the receipts and vouchers are upto 1994, although the consent award itself is passed on 23.06.1990.
20. He contends that just because the petitioners' father had unsuccessfully challenged the land acquisition proceedings, the petitioners are not estopped or precluded from seeking the relief of declaration that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. He submits that the petitioners have not relinquished any part of the claim attracting the [SECTION] of the [ACT]. In the earlier round of litigations also, the petitioners' father had raised the relevant issues regarding the non-receipt of the compensation amount, etc. He relies on the Division Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of [PRECEDENT]. Its notes of cases are reported in [PRECEDENT]
261. Head-Note B read out by him is as follows:
"(B) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act (30 of 2013), [SECTION] - Lapse of proceedings -
Dismissal of petition challenging acquisition proceedings under old Act of 1894 - Does not bar maintainability of petition under [SECTION] New Act of 2013 - Particularly when new Act of 2013 was not in force during earlier round of litigation - And petitions under new Act of 2013 are entirely founded on different cause of action and different basis."
21. He submits that the respondents have not produced any receipt to show that the petitioners or somebody, under whom the petitioners claim, have received any compensation- amount. He reiterates that the acts done by the middleman [ENTITY] do not bind the petitioner in any way, as he was not their or their fathers' authorized person at all. He relies oh the Apex Court's judgment in the case of [PRECEDENT] for advancing the submission that unless the actual payment of compensation is made to the landowners, the possession of the land cannot be taken at all. Para 22 of the said decision read out by him is extracted hereinbelow:
"22. A cursory reading of these paragraphs will show that it is only pursuant to judicial orders that the State wakes up from its slumber. It is important to note that a notice of award under [SECTION] to persons interested can only be issued after money is received by the land Acquisition Collector, and that the said Collector shall not take possession of land unless and until compensation amount is received by him. Further, actual payment to land owners must be made latest within a period of 60 days. It is high time that the State realizes that persons whose property is expropriated need to be paid immediately so as to rehabilitate themselves. Also, it cannot be forgotten that the amount usually offered by way of an award of a Land Acquisition Collector under the 1894 Act is way below the real market value, which is only awarded and paid years later when the reference proceedings culminate in judgments of the High Courts and of this Court."
22. He submits that the second respondent Special Land Acquisition Officer ('S.L.A.O.' for short) has issued the award notice under [SECTION] of the [ACT] to the petitioners. If [ENTITY] was the power of attorney holder of the petitioner and/or of their father, there would not have been any need to issue notice to the petitioners.
23. At this juncture, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the records reveal that [SECTION] notice sent to the landowners is in fact received by [ENTITY].
24. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. That the petitioners' father challenged the acquisition proceedings in [CASE NUMBER] and thereafter in [CASE NUMBER] and in [CASE NUMBER] without any rate of success cannot preclude his sons from taking advantage of the change in law, if they are in a position to establish their entitlement under the new legal regime. [SECTION] of the [ACT], contains two requirements for declaring that the acquisition proceedings have lapsed.
(i) if the physical possession of the land has not been taken or
(ii) if compensation has not been paid.
25. The notification, dated 19.4.1991, issued under [SECTION] of the [ACT] shows that the possession of the land in question was taken over. Under [SECTION] of the said Act, such a notification is conclusive proof of taking over of the possession of the land.
26. It is not in dispute that the lands are acquired by the State Government for the benefit of the third respondent Society. The fourth respondent [ENTITY], being the Planning Authority, has approved the layout plan of the third respondent Society on 7.12.2000. Subsequently, the work-order (Annexure- R1 to the fourth respondent's counter) was issued on 3.3.2001. The third respondent Society executed the relinquishment deed, dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure-R1 to the fourth respondent's counter) in favour of the [ENTITY] in respect of the civic amenity, park and open space. As per the Government Order, dated 5.5.2007, the [ENTITY] has made over the entire layout of the third respondent Society to the jurisdiction of BBMP.
27. The third respondent Society has allotted the sites to a number of persons. Some of the allottees have filed the impleading applications, which are allowed, by virtue of which they are arraigned as the respondent Nos.7 to 21. The said subsequently impleaded parties (respondent Nos.7 to 21) claim to have the khatha changed in their name, put up the construction, etc. They claim to be in possession and occupation of the sites allotted to them by the third respondent in the layout formed out of the lands in question.
28. In proof of the massive construction of the dwelling units by some of its members, the third respondent has produced the photographs at Annexures-R14 to R17. The said photographs are not only reflective of the existence of the house- buildings but also of fully developed roads.
29. The petitioners have also produced the photographs at Annexures-G1 to G6. They do not appear to have been taken from the satellite or google map covering the entire area measuring 4 acres 30 guntas. The said photographs are reflective of a small portions of the lands in question. Based on these photographs of stray portions of the land, this Court is not persuaded to give acceptability to the version of the petitioners that the possession of the lands in question is not taken over.
30. While dismissing the petition of the petitioners' father ([CASE NUMBER]), this Court has said as follows:
"Possession was taken on 10.12.1991 and the notification under [SECTION] was issued on 7.1.1992, which was published in the gazette on 16.1.1992. The Government handed over the possession to the Society on 14.10.1992. The layout plan was approved by the [ENTITY] on 19.10.1992. The petitioners filed these writ petitions on 26.7.1995."
31. What this Court has said in the said earlier writ petition proceedings is not interfered with by the Division Bench in [CASE NUMBER] and by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in [CASE NUMBER].
32. To sum up, the issuance of [SECTION] notification, dated 19.4.1991, the approval of the third respondent's layout plan on 7.12.2000, issuance of the work-order, dated 3.3.2001, allotment of sites by the third respondent Society to its members, construction of the houses by the allottees, khathas standing in favour of the allottees, making over of the entire layout by the [ENTITY] to the jurisdiction of BBMP, the production of the photographs, which are reflective of the existence of the buildings and the fully developed roads, I am finding it difficult to give acceptability to the version of the petitioners that they are in possession of the lands in question.
33. The next question that arises for my consideration is whether the compensation on account of compulsory acquisition of land has not been paid. It is the case of the petitioners that neither they nor their father [ENTITY] have executed the power of attorney in favour of [ENTITY]; [ENTITY] is not their authorized agent. If [ENTITY] claiming to be the power of attorney holder of the petitioners' father has received any compensation, it does not amount to the compensation being paid to the recorded owners of the lands who are entitled to receive the compensation.
34. The alternative submission of the petitioners is that if the petitioners have received any amounts, it is on account of the sale agreement said to have been executed between [ENTITY] and the petitioners. It is their further case that the said [ENTITY] has exploited them, who are illiterate and rustic innocent villagers.
35. The petitioners' assertion that no power of attorney was ever executed in favour of [ENTITY] is unbelievable. In paragraph No.3 of the memorandum of the writ petition, the petitioners themselves have stated " This power of attorney was given only after declaration was issued and not earlier." Having admitted so, the petitioners ought to have stated as to whether the power of attorney was revoked. It is also not mentioned what steps have been taken towards the revocation of the power of attorney arrangement.
36. The copies of the vouchers at Annexures-R23 and R26 are reflective of the receipt of compensation amount by the petitioners' father and by the first petitioner respectively. The alternative submission of the petitioners that they received the amounts by way of sale agreement between [ENTITY] and themselves is to be examined. The petitioners ought to have furnished further material particulars as to why the sale deed did not fructify into sale agreement, what were the rights and obligations of the sale agreement-holder, that is [ENTITY], whether the amounts so received under the agreement were liable to be forfeited to the petitioners, etc.
37. The possibility of [ENTITY] taking the petitioners and/or their father for a ride cannot be ruled out. It could have been examined at some length, if the petitioners were only to arraign [ENTITY] as one of the respondents. In his absence, no adverse findings can be returned against him. If [ENTITY] has played any fraud, it is open to the petitioners to initiate a duly constituted suit against him and seek appropriate reliefs including the relief of damages.
38. On the ground that the consent award is not in the prescribed form, the acquisition proceedings cannot be interfered with at this stage, that is after 27 years of the issuance of the final notification. In saying so, I am fortified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in the case of [PRECEDENT] (supra). Paragraph Nos.5 and 6 of the said decision read as follows:
"5. Shri [ENTITY], learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that the award passed by the Collector is not in conformity with [SECTION] of the Act in as much as the agreements were not executed before the Collector and they were not in the prescribed form. He drew our attention to Form No.14, prescribed by the Rules and submitted that as disclosed by the Form itself, such an agreement has to be executed by the owner of the land in presence of the Land Acquisition Officer and has to be signed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In the present case, the agreements executed in 1985 were between the owners of the land and GIDC for whose benefit the lands were acquired. They were not signed in presence of the Land Acquisition Officer nor did the Land Acquisition Officer put his signature thereon. Therefore, the award passed by the Collector cannot be said to be an award under [SECTION] of the Act and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to payment of solatium, interest and additional benefits payable under the Act. We do not find any substance in this connection.
6. In this case, the agreements were between the owners and the GIDC for whose benefit the lands were acquired. Even before the notification under [SECTION] was issued, the owners and the GIDC had entered into an agreement whereby the owners had agreed to part with possession of their lands so as to enable GIDC to establish Udyog Nagar thereon. Under the said agreements, the GIDC was permitted to enjoy continuous possession of those lands till the process of acquisition under the [ACT] was to be completed.
While entering into these agreements, the owners had agreed to accept compensation @ Rs.6,100/- per acre. Thereafter, [SECTION] notification was published on August 2, 1984. While the proceedings were pending before the Land Acquisition Officer, the owners and GIDC again in the year 1985 entered into separate agreements, whereunder the Corporation agreed to pay and the owners agreed to accept compensation @ Rs.22,657/- per hectare inclusive of solatium and additional benefits payable under the Act. These agreements duly signed were presented before the Collector. On being satisfied about the voluntary nature of the said agreements, the Collector passed an award in terms of those agreements. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the essential requirements of [SECTION], as applicable in the State of Gujarat, was not complied with. Moreover, Form No.14 as such would not be relevant in a case where the agreement is between the owners and interested persons on the one hand and the body for which the land is being acquired on the other hand. Form No.14 would apply to a case where the owners and the persons interested in the land appear before the Collector and express their willingness to accept an agreed amount as compensation. In such cases, the agreement is required to be executed in the prescribed Form No.14. Therefore, even though in the present case the agreements were not in the prescribed form, there being no prescribed form for a case like this, the award cannot be said to be illegal or void.
39. Thus not finding any foundation for issuing the declaration that the impugned acquisition proceedings have lapsed, I dismiss these petitions.
40. Now that the main matter itself is disposed of, [CASE NUMBER] for direction and [CASE NUMBER] for vacating the interim order, are dismissed as having become unnecessary. The documents produced with [CASE NUMBER] are already referred to. It stands allowed.
41. No order as to costs.
JUDGE Cm/-MD