Laxmanbhai Lakhabhai Gora Sava vs State Of Gujarat on 13 February, 2025

0
73

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 scrutinize

Page 5 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 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 of

Page 6 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 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



Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here