SCA/18713/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 18713 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH AND HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ================================================= 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 ? ================================================= YUSUFBHAI JAMALBHAI KHAREDIVA-LA & 17 - Petitioner(s) Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPN. & 1 - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR DHAVAL D VYAS for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 11,14 - 16, 18,- for Petitioner(s) : 12 - 13, 17, MR PRASHANT G DESAI for Respondent(s) : 1, MS SANDHYA NATANI, AGP for Respondent(s) : 2, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 21/01/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) Mr Dhaval Vyas for the petitioners seeks leave to amend the cause title to correct the name of petitioner No.6 and states that petitioner No.6 should be Usmanbhai Ahmedbhai Shaikh (in place of Usmanji Karimji Shaikh) and that upon his death, his heir and legal representative is Mehboobbhai Usmanji Shaikh. SCA/18713/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT Leave as prayed for is granted for correcting the cause title with regard to petitioner No.6. 2. In view of the above amendment granted today, Mr Prashant Desai for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation states that the amount was not deposited in respect of the property for which petitioner No.6 is making the claim and that the amount will be deposited later on after ascertaining the correct particulars applicable to the property, if any, which was in occupation of petitioner No.6. 3. As far as petitioner No.15 is concerned, Mr Dhaval Vyas states that the particulars of the property in question of the said petitioner were given to the Corporation by his letter dated 10.10.2007. Mr Desai for the Corporation states that the amount payable in respect of the said property will also be paid later on in accordance with the formula which the Court may evolve for the other properties for which the particulars are already given and for which the Corporation has also prepared a detailed chart giving particulars of the amount of compensation payable for the land and the arrears of municipal taxes. The said chart is taken on record. 4. The controversy arising in this petition is about apportionment of compensation for the land belonging to the Government which was let out to the petitioners or their predecessors in title, on which superstructures were constructed by the petitioners or their predecessors in title. A part of such land is acquired by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation for widening of the road. While the Corporation has already determined and in many cases paid either the entire or substantial portion of the compensation payable to most of the petitioners in respect of the superstructures belonging to the petitioners, no compensation has SCA/18713/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT paid by the Corporation for the parcels of land acquired for widening the road, on account of the dispute about apportionment of compensation between the petitioner – tenants and the Government landlord. 5. Having heard Mr Dhaval Vyas for the petitioners, Mr Prashant Desai for the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Ms Sandhya Natani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State Government, we propose to dispose of this petition by giving appropriate directions for apportionment to be made for such compensation, which the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has already deposited with the Registry of this Court in compliance with the direction/s dated 03.10.2007. The amounts of compensation for the lands in question are deposited for all the petitioners, except petitioner Nos.6 and 15 for which the particulars have been given by the petitioners after our last order dated 03.10.2007. 6. It appears that there is no dispute about the nature of the leasehold interest of the petitioners in the lands in question that the petitioners were given such lands on long term basis and the petitioners are stated to be in occupation of the said lands for the last more than 50 years. 7. The learned advocate for the petitioners has invited our attention to the decisions of the Apex Court in Inder Parshad Vs. Union of India, (1994) 5 SCC 239 and Brij Behari Sahai (Dead) through legal heirs Vs. State of U.P., (2004) 1 SCC 641, where the apportionment of compensation for acquisition of Government land under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which land was in occupation of the tenants was determined in the ratio of 75:25 in favour of the tenants vis–a–vis the Government. SCA/18713/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case also, parcels of land in question were given by the Government to the petitioners or their forefathers on long term lease basis and on which the petitioners or their forefathers put up superstructures for residential purposes. Having regard to the said fact, we are inclined to direct the respondents to pay the petitioners compensation for the lands in question in the same ratio, and also to adjust the arrears of municipal taxes against the compensation payable to the petitioner – tenants. 9. Mr Desai for the Corporation states that the amounts of compensation deposited on 16.10.2007 were computed after deducting the arrears of municipal taxes payable by the petitioners. However, at that time, the Corporation had not made any apportionment of any compensation for the land and therefore, the Corporation shall undertake the exercise in the following manner:- (i) Out of the amounts of compensation for land as indicated in Column No.10 of the statement already produced on the record of this petition, the Corporation shall apportion such amounts in the ratio of 75:25 in favour of the petitioners vis–a–vis the State Government – i.e. 75% payable to the respective tenants shall be indicated in Column No.10A and 25% payable to the State Government shall be indicated in Column No.10B. (ii) Out of the amounts of compensation so payable to the share of the petitioners (i.e. Column No.10A), the arrears of taxes, which have already been deducted (Column No.11) shall be adjusted and the balance amounts payable to the petitioners shall be shown in a separate Column No.11A (Col. No.10A – Col. No.11 = Col. No.11A). SCA/18713/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT (iii) The Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation shall place the revised chart on the record of this petition by 10th February 2008. 10. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. After the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation produces the revised chart as per the directions given in the preceding paragraph, the Registry shall issue separate cheques in favour of the respective petitioners for the corresponding amounts in Column No.11A of the revised chart to be produced by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation as per the above directions. The Registry shall also issue an account payee cheque in favour of Collector, Ahmedabad City for the aggregate of the amounts in Column No.10B in the revised chart to be submitted by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation as per the above directions. The cheques shall be issued within three weeks from the date on which the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation produces the revised chart. [M.S. SHAH, J.] [RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.] mrpandya*