Gujarat High Court
Shankerbhai Naranbhai Patel vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 30 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/911/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR RECALL) NO. 911 of
2024
In
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 136 of 2016
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 912 of 2024
In
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 138 of 2016
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 914 of 2024
In
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 137 of 2016
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 917 of 2024
In
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 140 of 2016
======================================
SHANKERBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
======================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Applicant
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GP for the Opponent No. 1
MR. M. D. RAHEVAR, AGP for the Opponent no.1
======================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 30/01/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Rahevar, learned AGP waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent - State.
2. Heard Mr. A. V. Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicants - original claimants.
Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/911/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined
3. The present application is filed seeking recall of the order dated 27th January, 2017 passed by this Court in cross- objections preferred by the present applicants - original claimants seeking enhancement of compensation as against the judgment and award dated 16th May, 2008 passed by the reference Court in group of land reference cases being LAR case no.1517 of 2003 and allied matters.
3.1 Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicants at the outset has drawn attention of this Court to the averments made in the application to contend that inadvertantly the cross-objections were withdrawn under instructions under the bonafide belief that the same would not survive in light of disposal of the main proceedings i.e. first appeals preferred by the respondent - State authorities against the very same impugned judgment and award. It was pointed-out that the first appeals were disposed of in Lok Adalat pursuant to the withdrawal/ settlement purshis presented by the respondent - State authorities in light of the Circular dated 21 st October, 2014 as well as Circular dated 25 th October, 2016 of the respective departments of the State. Learned advocate had further submitted that subsequently in the cognate appeals preferred by the State, where the cross-objections preferred by the original claimants of the acquired lands came to be disposed of by common order dated 5 th September, 2022 passed by the co-ordinate Bench in First Appeal no.2241 of 2010 and allied matters. Considering the case of the respective parties in light of the original proceedings, the co- ordinate Bench had modified the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference Court by dismissing the Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/911/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined appeals of the State, however had enhanced the amount of compensation by awarding additional amount of compensation @ Rs.350/- per sq. mtr. which comes to Rs.181.9 per sq. mtr. after deduction of Rs.160/- per sq. mtr. awarded by the reference Court. The co-ordinate Bench has also held the claimants entitled to statutory benefits envisaged under Section 23(1)(a) and 23(2) of the Act and interest under Section 28 of the Act on the aforesaid additional amount of compensation of Rs.180/- sq. mtr.
3.2 By referring to the aforesaid judgment, learned advocate has therefore submitted that the applicants, who are small land holders and whose lands have been acquired for the public purpose being not aware about the intricacies of the provisions of law, had bonafidely under misconception of law had sought permission to withdraw the cross-objections. On such misconception of law, the applicants may not be deprived of enhancement of amount of compensation. He has therefore, urged this Court to provide them an opportunity to prove their case in cross-objections and therefore urged to restore the cross-objection by recalling of the order of withdrawal.
4. Mr. Rahevar, learned AGP for the respondent - State has placed reliance upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Deputy Executive Engineer, Dharoi Canal Sub-Division no.6, Vadnagar District Mehsana in one of the miscellaneous application being Misc. Civil Application no.911 of 2024 in Cross-Objection no.136 of 2016. It was submitted that after the withdrawal of the cross-objections, the applicants have Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/911/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined sought withdrawal of the decreetal amount. The reliance was placed on the calculation-sheet produced on record to point- out that the amount of award deposited was withdrawn by the present applicants on 19th June, 2018. He had therefore submitted that the claimants were conscious of their decision to withdraw the cross-objections, who have therefore waived their rights to seek enhancement of the additional amount of compensation. It was further pointed-out that the order of withdrawal is of the year 2017, whereas the present application seeking recall of the order has been filed almost after the delay of seven years in absence of any reasonable explanation for delay being offered, this Court may not consider the prayer for recall.
The reliance was placed on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of United of India and others Vs. N. Murugesan & ors. reported in 2022 (2) SCC 25 whereby the Court has succinctly deal with the principles governing delay, latches and acquiescence. He has therefore objected to the restoration of the cross-objection.
5. Learned advocate for the applicants has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority Vs. Harnand Singh (deceased) through Lrs. reported in 2024(7) SCALE
760. While inviting attention of this Court to the facts of the case, the learned advocate had submitted that despite chequered history of the case, noticing the fact that in similar batch of matters pertaining to land acquisition seeking enhancement of amount of compensation having been Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/911/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined entertained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the recall application on the ground of parity with the subsequent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court being not entertained by the High Court were quashed and set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice between the parties had enhanced the amount of compensation by considering the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution.
5.1 By referring to the aforesaid principle being laid down in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra), learned advocate had submitted that in the present case, the applicants are similarly situated like the other claimants whose case for enhancement of amount of compensation has been accepted in the cross-objections. However, by seeking recall of the order of withdrawal in the present application, limited prayer has been sought for to restore the cross-objections. At this stage, he is not seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation by way of prayer sought for is only seeking an opportunity to be extended to consider his case on merits in light of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench in the cognate group of appeals and cross-objections.
6. Having heard, learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the averments made in the application in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, indisputably the applicants - original claimants' lands have been acquired by the respondent - State authorities for Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/911/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined public purpose. The provisions under the Land Acquisition Act extends the right to prefer a reference in case of the interested parties being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation. As rightly pointed-out by the learned advocate, as per Order-41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, sub-section 4 provides that even if the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the cross- objections can be heard and determined independently.
7. Considering the grounds raised in the application, the Court has a reason to accept the case of the applicants that bonafidely the cross-objections were withdrawn at relevant stage in view of the disposal of the captioned appeal in the Lok Adalat. Looking to the contents of the withdrawal / settlement purshis reproduced in the order dated 12 th November, 2016 in the main captioned appeal, which was disposed of before the Lok Adalat, does not indicate that the overall settlement had arrived between the parties whereby the original claimants had also agreed to withdraw the cross- objections. In fact, reading of the relevant observations made by the Lok Adalat, it is clarified that disposing of the main captioned appeal shall not affect any connected matters arising out of the same incidental or any other proceedings filed or to be filed before any other Court. It is also clarified that order shall not be treated as precedent in any future cases for reference.
8. In light of the aforesaid observations and in light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (supra), this Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:55:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/911/2024 ORDER DATED: 30/01/2025 undefined Court is inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction by recalling the order dated 27 th January, 2017 passed in Cross- Objection no.130 of 2016 and allied matters. Hence, the present applications are allowed. The order dated 27th January, 2017 passed in Cross-Objection no.130 of 2016 and allied matters is hereby recalled. The cross-objection is directed to be restored to its original file. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
9. At this stage, learned AGP for the respondent - State authorities has submitted to clarify that the present applicants
- original claimants having approached this Court after the period of seven years and having withdrawn the amount deposited with the reference Court, may not be entitled to the interest for the interregnum period, in case if the cross- objections are allowed. The aforesaid aspect is kept open to be considered when the cross-objections are heard on merits.
(NISHA M. THAKORE, J.) AMAR RATHOD...
Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by AMAR RATHOD(HC01074) on Mon Feb 03 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 03 21:55:50 IST 2025