SCA/28333/2007 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 28333 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= MANAV KENDRA - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR P.C.KAVINA, Sr.Advocate with MR SP MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, Ms.Archana Raval, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,2 and 3. MR CZ SANKHLA for Respondent(s) : 4, DELETED for Respondent(s) : 5, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE Date : 29/08/2008 SCA/28333/2007 2/7 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT) Rule returnable today. Learned A.G.P. Ms.Raval appears for and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondents no.1,2 and 3 and Mr.C.Z.Sankhla appears for and waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent no.4. This petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution arises from the claim made by the petitioner Manav Kendra, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act for compensation for the part of its land acquired by the State Government under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') for the purpose of road widening. On 21st August, 1972, the petitioner purchased several pieces of lands situated at village Kandari, District Vadodara. The petitioner had also obtained the permission for non-agricultural use of the said land. The said pieces of lands were consolidated and were given single Survey No.1413. The said land Survey No.1413 was renumbered as Block No.1459. The part of the said Block No.1459 SCA/28333/2007 3/7 JUDGMENT admeasuring 3339 sq.mtrs. from original land Survey No.1470/2 was sought to be acquired by the State Government for the purpose of road widening. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 27th September, 1988. The possession of the said piece of land was taken over in the month of June, 2007. It is the claim of the petitioner that only when the possession was taken over from the petitioner, the petitioner realized that the said piece of land was acquired under the Act. Upon inquiry, it was learnt that the award for the said land as envisaged by Section 11 of the Act was made on 12th November, 1990. The amount of compensation was paid to one Ramdas Chhitabhai, a total stranger. The petitioner instituted Regular Civil Suit No.562 of 2007 before the learned Sr.Civil Judge, Vadodara seeking permanent injunction against the respondent authorities from taking over possession of the land in question. Pending the said suit, the petitioner also prayed for interim injunction which came to be rejected on 24th October, 2007. Since then, the petitioner has withdrawn the said suit and has SCA/28333/2007 4/7 JUDGMENT filed the present petition for declaration that acquisition of the aforesaid 3339 sq.mtrs. of land of Survey No.1470/2 of village Kandari is bad and illegal. In the alternative, the petitioner has prayed for compensation for the said land. In support of its claim, the petitioner has produced an abstract from Village Form No.7 and 12 which shows the possession of the petitioner of the land Survey No.1470/2 of village Kandari since the year 1972-73. The petitioner's name has been entered in the revenue record in respect of the aforesaid land Survey No.1470/2 by Entry No.2607 dated 23th October, 1972. By Entry No.2661 dated 19th May, 1973, several pieces of lands purchased by the petitioner of village Kandari have been given one consolidated Survey No.1413. In answer to the notice issued to the State Government, the State Government also has not disputed the ownership and possession of the petitioner of the disputed land. On the contrary, from the record, learned A.G.P. Ms.Raval has found that the possession of the disputed land was taken SCA/28333/2007 5/7 JUDGMENT from the petitioner. It is, however, the claim of the State Government that they had perused Village Form No.7 and 12. The name of above referred Ramdas Chhitabhai appeared in Village Form No.7 and 12. The notice under Section 9 of the Act was addressed to the said Ramdas Chhitabhai. The said Ramdas Chhitabhai also participated in the acquisition proceedings. The compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was paid to the said Ramdas Chhitabhai. The said Ramdas Chhitabhai had received the same under protest. It is stated that Ramdas Chhitabhai was the owner of the land Survey No.1470/1 and Survey No.1470/2. For land of Survey No.1470/2, the said Ramdas Chhitabhai has been paid compensation in the sum of Rs.4722.70. In support thereof, the State Government has produced copy of Village Form No.7 and 12 which was relied upon by the State Government. Evidently, an error has crept in at that stage. What was relied upon by the State Government was Village Form No.7 and 12 in respect of land Survey No.1470/2/1, a piece of land which is not the SCA/28333/2007 6/7 JUDGMENT subject matter of dispute. From the above referred undisputed facts, it is apparent that the State Government or its officers were not vigilant in examining the revenue record at the time of commencement of acquisition proceedings. Concerned officers were negligent in not examining the record of rights maintained by the Village Panchayat. Even 7 and 12 Form which was relied upon was in respect of some other land and not the land which was sought to be acquired. Error is apparent. In the circumstances, one would expect the State Government to volunteer to pay the amount of compensation to the rightful claimant – the petitioner. In the present case, the State Government has refused to shoulder the responsibility. Instead, it is suggested that it is for the petitioner to recover the amount of compensation from the aforesaid Ramdas Chhitabhai. We bemoan the approach of the State Government. In our view, in the backdrop of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the petitioner is entitled to the amount of compensation as prayed for. SCA/28333/2007 7/7 JUDGMENT We, therefore, allow this petition. We direct the respondents no.1 and 2 to pay to the petitioner the amount of compensation determined by the State Government with solatium and statutory interest till the date of payment. The respondent State will also pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. The aforesaid amount of compensation and the cost shall be paid as early as possible but not later than ten weeks from today. Rule is made absolute. The Registry shall issue the writ forthwith. ( Ms.R.M.Doshit, J ) ( Sharad D Dave, J ) pathan