Gujarat High Court
Rameshbhai Bhaskerbhai Patel vs State Of Guajrat on 3 November, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3963/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3963 of 2016
=============================================
RAMESHBHAI BHASKERBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUAJRAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR PARTHIV A BHATT(5331) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
ADVOCATE NOTICE UNSERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 6
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3,5,8
MR SHALIN JANI with MS SWATI VYAS for SHARDUL
AMARCHAND MANGALDAS AND CO(8426) for the Respondent(s)
No. 7
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 03/11/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. There is a note for withdrawal of appearance of Mr.Parthiv A. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners. No other counsel appears on behalf of the petitioners.
2. The present petition has been filed with the reliefs as under :-
"[A] This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit the present petition;Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:25:07 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3963/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined [B] This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the acquisition proceeding initiated under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in respect of land owned and occupied by the petitioners as mentioned in Schedule "A" attached hereto, situated at village Ichchhpor, Taluka: Choriyasi, District: Surat, by publishing Section 4 notification dated 22.1.1987 and Section 6 notification dated 17.3.1988 wherein award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in the year 1990, has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Rehabilitation Acquisition, and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the lands of the petitioners are free-hold land;
[C] This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring that the respondents, their agents and servants, cannot interfere or create hindrance or take away possession of land of the petitioners as mentioned in Schedule "A"
attached hereto situated at village Ichchhpor, Taluka:
Choriyasi, District: Surat, as the acquisition proceeding has lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;
[D] And to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper."
3. Pertinent is to note that the present petition has been filed in the year 2016 along with other connected petition, viz. Special Civil Application No. 2377 of 2016 to challenge the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short as the "Act' 1984") by virtue of notifications dated 22.01.1987 and 17.03.1988 under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act' 1894; respectively. As per the statement made in the writ petition itself, the award with respect to the Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:25:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3963/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined acquired lands had been made in the year 1990 itself. The acquisition is for the purposes of the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC).
4. Mr. Chinmay M. Gandhi, learned advocate has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.4 GIDC. It is submitted by Mr. Gandhi, learned advocate appearing for the GIDC that the acquisition notifications, subject matter of challenge herein, have been challenged by some of the land owners by preferring Special Civil Application No. 1657 of 1988 and other allied matters, which came to be dismissed on 19.04.1991. The Special Leave Petitions preferred by the land owners being SLP No. 3588 of 2003 and allied matters, have been disposed of as withdrawn vide judgment and order dated 07.05.2004 with the observation that the petitioners are at liberty to seek allotment of alternative land as per the prevailing policy of the GIDC and in case representations were made by the petitioners in that regard, the same will be considered and decided within two months from the date of the order. It was observed by the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 07.05.2004 that if any adverse order was passed, the petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh petition.
5. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the GIDC dated 22.07.2016, it is stated that with respect to the acquisitions in question, two categories of awards were passed; (i) consent awards under Section 11(2) of the Act, 1894 and (ii) award under Section 11 of the Act, 1894. The contention is that the majority of the land holders had consented for the award Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:25:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3963/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined being passed and the possession was taken thereafter. The stand of the learned advocate appearing for the GIDC, thus, is that there is no question of application of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Rehabilitation Acquisition, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (in short as the "Act' 2013") and the prayer to hold the acquisitions being bad in law as having been lapsed by virtue of sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act' 2013, is wholly misconceived.
6. Taking note of the above, we find that once the challenge to the acquisition notifications by some of the land holders, made at the relevant point of time, had been upturned by this Court and the Special Leave Petition filed before the Apex Court had been withdrawn with the statement by the land holders that they will seek alternative relief before the GIDC, there is no question of finding fault with the acquisition. Further, as per the statement made in the writ petition itself, the awards with respect to the land in question were passed in the year 1990 and the possession has been taken much prior to the filing of the writ petition, there is no question of lapse of the acquisition proceedings by taking aid of Section 24(2) of the Act' 2013.
7. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners about the physical possession of the land in question being with the petitioners, it is of no relevance, inasmuch as, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [(2020) 8 SCC 129], the paper possession or preparation of possession memo or panchnama Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:25:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3963/2016 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025 undefined is an approved mode of transfer of possession to the acquiring body in the land acquisition proceedings. Those land holders who remained in the physical possession of the land in question even after the declaration of the award and preparation of the possession memo or panchnama, would be treated as unauthorised occupants.
8. With the above, the reliefs as prayed for in the present petition cannot be granted. The present petition pending for more than 9 years old, is being dismissed with the above reasoning, in the absence of the representation of the petitioners by the learned advocate who was engaged at the relevant point of time, with the liberty to the petitioners to seek review/recall, if any of the grievances of the petitioners remain.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) BIJOY B. PILLAI Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by BIJOY B. PILLAI(HC00202) on Fri Nov 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 08 02:25:07 IST 2025