SCA/16193/2007 1/9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16193 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH =============================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? NO 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? NO 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 ? NO 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO =============================================== AHEMAD GULAM MAHMMED ISMAIL BOBAT - Petitioner Versus BIPINBHAI DHAHYABHAI PARMAR & 2 - Respondents =============================================== Appearance : MR AJ PATEL for Petitioner. MR SI NANAVATI FOR NANAVATI & NANAVATI for Respondents : 1 - 3. =============================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 22/10/2008 CAV JUDGMENT 1. By way of this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has SCA/16193/2007 2/9 JUDGMENT prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the order dated 22.3.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Bharuch in Civil Misc. Appeal No.16 of 2007 whereby the learned appellate court has partly modified the order passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Ankleshwar below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.308 of 2006 to the extent that both the parties are directed to maintain status-quo of the subject matter of the suit till the final disposal of the suit. 2. The dispute is with respect to the land bearing Survey No.202/02/P ad-measuring 912 sq.mtrs situated at GIDC Ankleshwar. The said land originally belonged to the respondents herein-original defendants and after following due procedure the said land came to be acquired by the GIDC under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and award also came to be declared. Thereafter the said land in question SCA/16193/2007 3/9 JUDGMENT came to be sold and/or allotted to the petitioner and the petitioner also paid full sale consideration to the GIDC. According to the petitioner he was handed over the possession also. However, as the respondents were trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner with respect to the land in question and therefore the petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit No.308 of 2006 for permanent injunction in the Court of learned Principal Civil Judge, Ankleshwar. He has also prayed for declaration and permanent injunction and also restraining the respondents permanently from interfering with the lawful possession of the petitioner. The learned trial court allowed the said application Exh.5 and granted temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff and against the defendants. 2.1 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned trial court passed below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.308 of 2006, the respondents herein-original defendants SCA/16193/2007 4/9 JUDGMENT preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No.16 of 2007 before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Bharuch and the learned appellate Judge vide his impugned judgment and order dated 22.3.2007 partly allowed the said appeal being Civil Misc. Appeal No.16 of 2007 modifying the order passed by the learned trial court passed below Exh.5 directing both the parties to maintain status-quo. 2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned appellate court passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No.16 of 2007, petitioner-plaintiff has preferred present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri A.J.Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner-original plaintiff has vehemently submitted that considering the fact that the land in question originally belonged to the respondents-original defendants SCA/16193/2007 5/9 JUDGMENT had been acquired by State for GIDC as far as back in 1973 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, and even the award came to be declared and the compensation paid, the defendants had no right, title or interest in the land in question, therefore they cannot interfere with the lawful possession of the petitioner when the said land has been allotted to the petitioner-plaintiff on payment of full consideration. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned appellate court has materially erred in directing the parties more particularly petitioner-plaintiff to maintain status-quo. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition. 4. Petition is opposed by Shri S.I.Nanavati, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of respondents-original defendants. It is submitted that as such the defendants are in possession of the land in question. It is submitted that, under the policy of GIDC, the respondents herein- SCA/16193/2007 6/9 JUDGMENT original defendants are entitled to certain lands/benefits which are not given to the defendants whose lands have been acquired and therefore the defendants are entitled to retain the possession. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned appellate court has rightly passed the order directing the parties to maintain status-quo. It is also further submitted that even the dispute with respect to the quantum of land of compensation is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. 6. It is not in dispute that the land in question originally belonged to the respondents herein-original defendants had been acquired by the State for GIDC after following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Act and the award is also declared and even compensation is paid. It SCA/16193/2007 7/9 JUDGMENT is also not in dispute that the acquisition has not been challenged by the respondents- defendants. Once the land is acquired and the award is declared and the amount of compensation is paid, the original land owner thereafter has no right, title or interest in the land in question and the acquired land absolutely vest with the acquiring body. It is also to be noted that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has been allotted the land by the GIDC on full consideration and therefore he has become the absolute owner and has right to enjoy the property in question. The original defendants might have grievance against GIDC, but once the land is acquired and the award is declared, he cannot retain the possession and any possession after the acquisition would be illegal and/or unauthorised. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that on allotment, he is already handed over the possession. It is also required SCA/16193/2007 8/9 JUDGMENT to be noted that merely because some dispute with respect to the amount of quantum of compensation was pending is no ground for the original owner to retain the possession. As stated above, once the land is acquired and the award is declared, the original owner ceases to have any right, title or interest in the land in question, and any possession, if any, would be unauthorised and/or illegal. 7. Considering the above, it appears that the learned appellate court has materially erred in modifying the order passed by the learned trial court passed below Exh.5 and directing both the parties inclusive of petitioner-plaintiff to maintain status-quo and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. For the reasons stated above, the petition succeeds. The impugned order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Bharuch passed in Civil Misc. Appeal SCA/16193/2007 9/9 JUDGMENT No.16 of 2007 is hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the learned trial court passed below Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.308 of 2006 is hereby restored. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( M.R. SHAH, J. ) syed/