Gujarat High Court
Laxmanbhai Lakhabhai Gora Sava vs State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025 undefined IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2777 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI ================================================== Approved for Reporting Yes No √ ================================================== LAXMANBHAI LAKHABHAI GORA SAVA & ORS. Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ================================================== Appearance: MR GM AMIN(124) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 MS HETAL PATEL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent No. 1 MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI Date : 13/02/2025 ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
Heard Mr. G.M. Amin, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms.
Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
State – respondent and Mr. Rituraj Meena, learned counsel has
appeared for the respondent no. 2 and perused the record.
2. The present petition has been filed by seven persons claiming
to be owners and occupants of land bearing Survey No. 165 paiki,
Page 1 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
166 paiki and 167 paiki situated in the sim of Village Navda, Taluka –
Barvada District : Ahmedabad. The challenge in the writ petition is to
the Notifications dated 21.10.2010 and 29.03.2011 under Sections 4
and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as
the “Act, 1894”). The sole ground of challenge to the validity of the
acquisition notifications, as agitated in the writ petition, is invocation
of the Urgency Clause under Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894, whereby
the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, 1894 had been dispensed
with. The grounds taken in the writ petition were that with the
invocation of the Urgency Clause, the petitioners had been denied
opportunity of filing objection and there was no occasion for denial of
opportunity, inasmuch as, only 30 days time was to be provided for
filing of the objection. An invaluable right of the petitioners for filing
objection in a case of compulsory acquisition has been taken away
without any justification on the part of the State respondent.
2.1. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, thus,
is that the acquisition proceedings conducted with the publication of
the Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 in the year
2010-11 is nothing but a fraud on the exercise of power on the part
of the State respondent. The denial of opportunity of filing objection
which is a valuable right of the land owners would result in violation
Page 2 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
of the Constitutional provisions and the result is that the
Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 are liable to be
struck down.
3. Taking aid of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Noida Industrial Development Authority v. Ravindra
Kumar & Ors., reported in (2022) 13 SCC 468, in a matter of
acquisition for planned industrial development through Noida by
invocation of Urgency Clause under Section 17(1) read with Section
17(4) of the Act, 1894 for dispensing with the inquiry under Section
5A of the Act, 1894, it was argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that a via-media was adopted by the High Court of
Allahabad in granting compensation to the land owners in
accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 2013”),
when the High Court found that the acquisition proceedings were
conducted illegally by invocation of the Urgency Clause.
4. Reliance is further placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in
Sahara India Commercial Corporation Limited & Ors., v. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2017) 11 SCC 339; Savitri
Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2015) 7 SCC
Page 3 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
21 to argue that invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17 (4) of the Act,
1894 for dispensation of inquiry under Section 5A of the Act,1894
resulting in depriving of the land owners of their most valuable right
to file objections under Section 5A of the Act, 1894, was illegal and
unwarranted. The contention is that in the case of Savitri Devi
(supra), the Apex Court has noted that the High Court though arrived
at a conclusion that since invocation of Sections 17(1) and 17(4) of
the Act, 1894 was uncalled for and unwarranted, the acquisition of
the lands of the appellants therein was illegal, but did not grant the
relief of setting aside the entire acquisition and restoration of the
appellants therein. The High Court had noticed that the acquired
land underwent development and third party rights have been
created and hence, it was not possible to undo the acquisition,
however, in order to balance the equities, it was felt that grant of
higher compensation and better share in the development plan to
those land owners would meet the ends of justice.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance
upon the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Radhy Shyam
(Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,
reported in (2011) 5 SCC 553, wherein after analyzing the statutory
provisions and the decisions of the Apex Court ranging from
Page 4 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
Narayan Govind Gavate v. State of Maharashtra reported
(1977) 1 SCC 133 to Omprakash v. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (1998) 6 SCC 1; Tika Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported in (2009) 10 SCC 689; Union of India v. Krishnan Lal
Arneja reported in (2004) 8 SCC 453 and Union of India v.
Mukesh Hans., reported in (2004) 8 SCC 14 the following
principles have been laid down :-
“53. From the analysis of the relevant statutory provisions and
interpretation thereof by this Court in different cases, the
following principles can be culled out:
(i) Eminent domain is a right inherent in every sovereign
to take and appropriate property belonging to citizens for
public use. To put it differently, the sovereign is entitled to
reassert its dominion over any portion of the soil of the
State including private property without its owner’s
consent provided that such assertion is on account of
public exigency and for public good. – Dwarkadas
Shrinivas v. Sholapur Spinning and Weaving Co. Ltd., AIR
(1954) SC 119, Chiranjit Lal Chowdhuri v. Union of India
AIR (1951) SC 41 and Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar v. State
of Gujarat (1995) Supp. (1) SCC 596.
(ii) The legislations which provide for compulsory
acquisition of private property by the State fall in the
category of expropriatory legislation and such legislation
must be construed strictly – DLF Qutab Enclave Complex
Educational Charitable Trust v. State of Haryana (2003) 5
SCC 622; State of Maharashtra v. B.E. Billimoria (2003) 7
SCC 336 and Dev Sharan v. State of U.P., Civil Appeal
No.2334 of 2011 decided on 7.3.2011.
(iii) Though, in exercise of the power of eminent domain,
the Government can acquire the private property for
public purpose, it must be remembered that compulsory
taking of one’s property is a serious matter. If the property
belongs to economically disadvantaged segment of the
society or people suffering from other handicaps, then the
Court is not only entitled but is duty bound to scrutinizePage 5 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
the action/decision of the State with greater vigilance, care
and circumspection keeping in view the fact that the land
owner is likely to become landless and deprived of the only
source of his livelihood and/or shelter.
(iv) The property of a citizen cannot be acquired by the
State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities without
complying with the mandate of Sections 4, 5-A and 6 of the
Act. A public purpose, however, laudable it may be does
not entitle the State to invoke the urgency provisions
because the same have the effect of depriving the owner of
his right to property without being heard. Only in a case of
real urgency, the State can invoke the urgency provisions
and dispense with the requirement of hearing the land
owner or other interested persons.
(v) Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) confers
extraordinary power upon the State to acquire private
property without complying with the mandate of Section
5-A. These provisions can be invoked only when the
purpose of acquisition cannot brook the delay of even few
weeks or months. Therefore, before excluding the
application of Section 5-A, the concerned authority must
be fully satisfied that time of few weeks or months likely
to be taken in conducting inquiry under Section 5-A will,
in all probability, frustrate the public purpose for which
land is proposed to be acquired.
(vi) The satisfaction of the Government on the issue of
urgency is subjective but is a condition precedent to the
exercise of power under Section 17(1) and the same can be
challenged on the ground that the purpose for which the
private property is sought to be acquired is not a public
purpose at all or that the exercise of power is vitiated due
to mala fides or that the concerned authorities did not
apply mind to the relevant factors and the records.
(vii) The exercise of power by the Government under
Section 17(1) does not necessarily result in exclusion of
Section 5-A of the Act in terms of which any person
interested in land can file objection and is entitled to be
heard in support of his objection. The use of word “may” in
sub section (4) of Section 17 makes it clear that it merely
enables the Government to direct that the provisions of
Section 5-A would not apply to the cases covered under
sub-section (1) or (2) of Section 17. In other words,
invoking of Section 17(4) is not a necessary concomitant ofPage 6 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
the exercise of power under Section 17(1).
(viii) The acquisition of land for residential, commercial,
industrial or institutional purposes can be treated as an
acquisition for public purposes within the meaning of
Section 4 but that, by itself, does not justify the exercise of
power by the Government under Section 17(1) and/or
17(4). The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that
planning, execution and implementation of the schemes
relating to development of residential, commercial,
industrial or institutional areas usually take few years.
Therefore, the private property cannot be acquired for
such purpose by invoking the urgency provision contained
in Section 17(1). In any case, exclusion of the rule of audi
alteram partem embodied in Section 5-A (1) and (2) is not
at all warranted in such matters.
(ix) If land is acquired for the benefit of private persons,
the Court should view the invoking of Section 17(1) and/or
17(4) with suspicion and carefully scrutinize the relevant
record before adjudicating upon the legality of such
acquisition.”
6. Placing the observations in the aforesaid decisions, it was
argued that Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act, 1894
confers extra ordinary power upon the State to acquire private
property without complying with the mandate of Section 5A. These
provisions can be invoked only when the purpose of acquisition
cannot brook the delay of even few weeks or months. Before
excluding the application of Section 5-A, the concerned authority
must be fully satisfied that the time of few weeks or months likely to
be taken in conducting inquiry under Section 5-A will, in all
probability, frustrate the public purpose for which the land is
proposed to be acquired. It was argued that though the satisfaction
Page 7 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
of the State Government on the question of urgency is subjective, but
it is a condition precedent to the exercise of power under Section
17(1) of the Act, 1894 and the same can be challenged on the ground
that the purpose for which the private property is sought to be
acquired is not a public purpose at all or that the exercise of power is
vitiated due to mala fides or that the concerned authorities did not
apply mind to the relevant factors and the records . It was held by the
Apex Court that the public purpose however, laudable may be does
not entitle the State to invoke the urgency provisions because the
same have the effect of depriving the owners of his right to property
without being heard. Only in a case of real urgency, the State can
invoke urgency provisions and dispense with the requirement of
hearing the land owners or other interested persons.
7. Taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, we may note the principles stated by the Hon’ble
Apex Court in the case of Radhy Shyam (supra) to the effect that the
acquisition of the land for residential, commercial, industrial or
institutional purposes though can be treated as an acquisition for
public purposes within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act, 1894, but
that fact by itself, does not justify the exercise of power by the
Government under Section 17(1) and/or Section 17(4) of the Act,
Page 8 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
1894. The said principle has been stated by the Hon’ble Apex Court
taking judicial notice of the fact that planning, execution and
implementation of the schemes relating to development of
residential, commercial, industrial or institutional areas usally take
few years. Keeping this in mind, the Hon’ble Apex Court has
observed in Radhy Shyam (supra) that private property cannot be
acquired for such purpose by invoking the urgency provisions
contained in Section 17(1) of the Act, 1894 and, in any case,
exclusion of the rule of audi alteram partem embodied in Section 5-A
(1) and (2) is not at all warranted in such matters.
8. Taking note of the said statement of law made by the Apex
Court, we may take note of the purpose for which the land in
question had been acquired. Pertinent is to note that the land in
question had been acquired for the public purpose for establishment
of new water works pumping station. Three plots comprising of
Revenue Survey no. 165 paiki (1-06-97); 166 paiki (1-46-16); 167
paiki (1-90-02) have been acquired by invocation of the urgency
clause resulting in dispensation of the inquiry under Section 5A.
Along with the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 1 by the
Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer, Collector, Ahmedabad
dated 26.06.2012, a copy of the certificate issued under Section 17 of
Page 9 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
the Act, 1894 has been brought on record as Annexure-‘R 2′. The
certificate signed by the Chief Engineer and Additional Secretary to
the Government of Gujarat, Narmada, Water Resources, Water
Supply and Kalpsar Department addressed to the Land Acquisition
Officer, Ahmedabad at page ’72’ of the paper book states that :-
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the land for New water works
pumping station are to be acquired at Navda, Ta. Barwala,
Dist. Ahmedabad bearing survey number 165 paiky, 166
paiky and 167 paiky total 443.15 hector immediately on
urgent basis.
It is also certified that the Urgency Clause is
applicable for acquiring the land because of :-
(a) The Government of Gujarat has sanctioned and
approved the new water works project to fulfill the
drinking water requirement of Saurashtra region.
(b) There is no alternative for the said land.
(c) The department has administratively approved the
project.
(d) The work order for construction of water works
can be issued only after acquisition of the said land.
2. Government of Gujarat has sanctioned and approved
the cost of the land required to be paid for New Works. The
Government of Gujarat has sanctioned and approved the
New water works project.
3. The villages surrounding districts may face the
drinking water problem, if the said land is not acquired in
time.
Hence it is utmost necessary to apply Urgently Clause
U/S 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Page 10 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
sd/-
(D.K. Mehta)
Chief Engineer and Additional Secretary to
Govt. of Gujarat Narmada, Water Resources,
Water Supply and K. Department.”
9. A categorical statement has been made therein that initially a
total area of 443.15 hectares, later reduced to 329.12 hectares
comprising of three plots, namely Revenue Survey No. 165 paiki, 166
paiki and 167 paiki, was needed on urgent basis, to set-up new water
works pumping station, for the project in order to meet the drinking
water requirement of Saurashtra region. The said certificate also
states that there is no alternative land for the purpose. The
department had granted administrative approval to the project and
the work order for construction of water works can be issued only
after the acquisition of the proposed land. The Government of
Gujarat had sanctioned and approved the cost of the land required
to be paid for the work and also approved the new water works
project. It also states that the villages surrounding districts may face
the drinking water problem, if the proposed lands were not acquired
in time.
10. Taking note of the content of the certificate issued under
Section 17 of the Act, 1894, noticing that the lands in question had
Page 11 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
been acquired for setting up new water works pumping station in
order to meet the drinking water problems of the villages
surrounding districts, it is difficult for us to say that the Urgency
Clause under Section 17 of the Act, 1894 had been invoked contrary
to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Radhy Shyam
(supra).
11. We may simply record that the Apex Court in the case of Radhy
Shyam (supra) while stating the principles noted in paragraph ’53’
hereinabove was dealing with the acquisitions for development
projects such of residential, commercial, industrial or institutional
purposes which require lot of planning for execution and
implementation of the project, which in the opinion of the Apex Court
would take years. With the said observations made in the case of
Radhy Shyam (supra) the Apex Court had held that generally for such
development projects, invocation of Urgency Clause to dispense with
the inquiry, the implementation of which would take few months,
would not be justified.
11.1. The principles stated in Radhy Shyam (supra) cannot be
applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch
as, the project for construction of new water works to meet with the
drinking water problems of the villages surrounding the districts
Page 12 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
cannot be placed at par with the development projects of lands for
residential, commercial, industrial and institutional purposes as
noted therein. The principles on which the above noted decisions,
relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners, have been rendered
are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. Further apart from a bald statement made in the rejoinder that
the land in question is not immediately needed and there was no
reason for invocation of Urgency Clause, nothing much could be
brought on record by the petitioners to rebut the stand of the Sate
respondents. The submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that a via-media is required to be adopted and the
petitioners are to be given higher amount of compensation in order
to balance the equity is not convincing.
13. For the above reasons, the challenge is to the validity of the
Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 on the sole
ground of invocation of Urgency Clause cannot be sustained. We may
record that it could not be argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the purpose for which the land in question was
acquired is not a public purpose or that the exercise of power is
vitiated due to mala fides or there is no application of mind to the
relevant factors and the records. The subjective satisfaction of the
Page 13 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
State Government on the question of urgency cannot be scrutinized
like a court of appeal within the scope of Article 226 of the
Constitution of India as no error in the decision making process
could be found in view of the categorical statement made in the
certificate issued on 08.04.2010 invoking Urgency Clause under
Section 17 of the Act, 1894, about the urgency for acquisition of the
lands in question to meet the drinking water problems. No
interference, as such, is called for.
14. The second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the entire proceedings of acquisition stood lapsed,
inasmuch as, there has been no award within the time prescribed
under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. Before dealing with the said
submission, we may record that when the matter was taken up on
25.04.2024, having noted the contention of Mr. Rituraj Meena,
learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 2 that as per his
instructions, award had already been made on 17.06.2013 and
compensation had been deposited before the competent authority,
we provided time to the learned advocate to file affidavit of
respondent no. 2 to bring on record the award, if any, made in
respect of the land in question.
14.1. The affidavit dated 29.04.2024 has been filed on behalf of the
Page 14 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
respondent no. 2 wherein a categorical statement has been made to
the effect that an award dated 17.06.2013 had been passed under
Section 11 of the Act, 1894. The copy of the award passed in LAQ
Case No. 4 of 2010 dated 17.06.2013 has also been appended as
Annexure-A2. It is further stated therein that pursuant to the said
award, the office of the answering respondent no. 2 had received a
communication in the month of December, 2015 from the Special
Land Acquisition Officer informing the passing of the award dated
17.06.2013 and since the writ petition was pending, the amount has
been been transmitted to the Land Acquisition Officer who had
deposited it in the Personal Deposit (P.D. A/c no. 95). Later with the
transfer of the jurisdiction and now with the reconstitution of the
boundaries of District : Botad, with the inclusion of Mouje Barvala,
the amount has now been transferred to District : Botad. The
records of the case had also been sent to the Deputy Collector,
Barvala. The copy of the communication issued in the month of
December, 2015 is appended as Annexure-A3 therein.
14.2. These contentions made in the affidavit are sought to be
agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioners by placing the
affidavit-in-reply dated 07.05.2024 wherein it is stated that no notice
was served upon the petitioners about making of the award much
Page 15 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
less notice under section 12 (2) of the Act, 1894. It was stated that
that the award declared in the year 2013 has not been brought on
record of the present petition till the filing of the affidavit dated
29.04.2024.
15. Reference has been made to the decision of the Apex Court in
the case of Raja Harsish Chandra Raj Singh v. Deputy Land
Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500 by the learned
counsel for the petitioners to submit that when the matter was sub
judice, it was the duty of the respondent to produce the award and
immediately issue notice under Section 12 (2) read with Section 31 of
the Act, 1894 intimating the land owner about the disbursement of
the award. The contention is that the petitioners have neither
received any compensation, nor the compensation has been
deposited in the Court or in the treasury. The competent authority
did not communicate the proceedings of making the of award at any
point of time and hence the entire acquisition proceedings are to be
treated as having been lapsed.
15.1. In aid of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners
had referred to the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of
Nareshbhai Bhagubhai & Ors., v. Union of India reported in
(2019) 15 SCC 1 and Raja Harsish Chandra Raj Singh (supra) to
Page 16 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
submit that it was the duty of the Collector to communicate the
factum of making of the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894.
The submission is that the since the award has never been
communicated to the petitioners, during the pendency of the present
petition, the award dated 17.06.2013 in LAQ case no. 4 of 2020
brought on record be treated as a paper award and since no
acquisition proceedings could be concluded without making of the
award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, the entire proceedings be
considered to have been lapsed.
16. Taking note of these submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioners, suffice it to record that the sole challenge in the
writ petition is about the acquisition notifications issued under
Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, 1894 on the ground of denial of
opportunity of filing objection with the invocation of the Urgency
Clause. The original prayers made in the writ petition are relevant to
be noted at this stage, wherein, prayer was made for quashing and
setting aside of the acquisition notification under Sections 4 and 6 of
the Act, 1894 dated 21.10.2010 and 29.03.2011 and further
restraining the respondents from taking possession of the petitioners
land situated in the aforesaid three survey numbers during the
pendency of the writ petition.
Page 17 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
17. From the order-sheet, we may record that on the presentation
of the writ petition, no interim order was passed. A Civil Application
(For Direction) No.9542 of 2012 was filed by the petitioners seeking
for directions to the effect that the possession of the land in question
be restored to the petitioners-land owners during the pendency of
the writ petition and the respondent be restrained from taking
further action on the land, subject matter of acquisition. An order
dated 27.02.2013 was passed disposing of the said application
noticing that in view of the admitted fact that the possession of the
land in question had already been taken and the respondents were
contemplating to set-up pumping stating on the land in question so
as to meet with the drought situation of certain areas for providing
water to the public at large, there was no question of granting prayer
for restoration of the possession as sought to be canvassed, by an
interim order. It was observed by this Court that no further reliefs
deserved to be granted.
17.1. It is, thus, clear that with the disposal of the aforesaid Civil
Application with the order dated 27.02.2013, there was no interim
protection to the petitioners. No order was passed by this Court at
any point of time restraining the land acquisition authority from
proceeding further. After disposal of the aforesaid application vide
Page 18 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
order dated 27.02.2013, the matter was listed on many occasions,
and the Court has summoned the record to make inquiry to ascertain
as to the manner in which the State Government had applied its
mind and recorded satisfaction about the urgency for acquisition of
the land in question. However, nothing much has proceeded. The
adjournments were taken by the learned counsels for the parties for
one or the other reasons.
18. However, the fact remains that at no point of time during the
pendency of the present petition for a period of 12 years, the
petitioners have filed any application seeking for amendment of the
prayers made in the original writ petition agitating that the
acquisition proceedings stood lapsed on account of non-making of
the award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. A perusal of the order-
sheet indicates that the only ground pressed into service by the
petitioners over the period of time was invocation of the Urgency
Clause and the Court continued to make inquiry in that regard by
passing different orders from time to time.
19. There is a complete silence in the writ petition about the issue
of non-making of the award on the part of the competent authority,
namely the Special Land Acquisition Officer. There was, thus, no
occasion for the respondents to place the award on record. The
Page 19 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the
award dated 17.06.2013 passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer in LAQ case no.4 of 2010 has not been brought on record of
the present petition, the acquisition proceedings be considered to
have been lapsed is, thus, liable to be rejected as misconceived.
20. The assertion with regard to the award having been passed
without issuing notice to the petitioners have been brought on record
for the first time by filing the affidavit dated 07.05.2024. The said
assertion having been made after a period 12 years cannot be
appreciated to attach any illegality in the process of making of the
award. The contention of the learned for the petitioners that it was
the duty of the respondent to bring the award on record during the
pendency of the writ petition is neither here or there. As no
foundation has been laid in the writ petition to challenge the
acquisition proceedings on the plea of non-making of the award
within the time prescribed under Section 11 of the Act, 1894, the
said plea raised for the first time during the course of final
arguments on the basis of the statement made in the affidavit dated
07.052024 cannot be entertained.
21. The second ground of challenge to the acquisition notifications
issued in the year 2010 and 2011 under the Act, 1894, on the plea of
Page 20 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2777/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/02/2025
undefined
the acquisition proceedings having been lapsed for non-making of the
award within the time prescribed under Section 11 of the Act, 1894
is, therefore, turned down.
22. In the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case,
no infirmity can be attached to the acquisition proceedings
conducted by the State respondent. The writ petition deserves to be
dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
sd/-
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
sd/-
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
phalguni
Page 21 of 21
Uploaded by PHALGUNI PATEL(HC00175) on Mon Mar 10 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 14 21:27:47 IST 2025