Fogatbhai Ravjibhai Vasava vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 18216 Guj

      C/SCA/4217/2020                        ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4217 of 2020

                                With

CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING) NO. 1 of 2021
        In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4217 of 2020

=============================================
                      FOGATBHAI RAVJIBHAI VASAVA
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
=============================================
Appearance:
MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
 for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5,6,7,8
MR.TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT
PLEADER/PP(99) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR KASHYAP R JOSHI(2133) for the Respondent(s) No. 9
=============================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
       ARAVIND KUMAR
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

                         Date : 08/12/2021

                           ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)

[1] On account of an application having been filed for

hearing this matter expeditiously, we have taken up this

Special Civil Application for final disposal by consent of

learned advocates appearing for the parties.

C/SCA/4217/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021

[2] We have heard Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners and Mr.Tirthraj Pandya,

learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the

State.

[3] Petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:

"9.(a).......

(b) Issue appropriate, writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside all Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of award passed u/s.11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 04.09.1986 by the Land Acquisition Officer.

(c)issue appropriate, writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside all Land Acquisition proceedings in respect of award passed u/s. 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 04.09.1986 by the Land Acquisition Officer u/s. 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 on the ground that the said Land Acquisition Proceedings are lapsed.

(d) issue appropriate, writ, order or direction for re- grant of the lands to the petitioners in view of failure on the part of the State of Gujarat to comply with the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 11.04.1988 passed in Civil Appeal No.1432 of 1988;

            (e)           ......


            (f) ......"







       C/SCA/4217/2020                          ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021



[4]    It is the contention of         Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioners are

the owners of the land bearing Survey No. 206/1 (New

No.244), Survey No. 188 (New No.251), Survey No. 203

(New No.246), Survey No. 194 (New No.248) and Survey

No. 195/1 (New No.247) situated at Village Jeetnagar,

Taluka Nandod, District Narmada and they are in actual

and physical possession and enjoyment of the said

property. It is also contended, though lands were

acquired, physical possession having not been taken

petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Sub-Section

(2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and

Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short the "Act"). Hence, she

has sought for the reliefs sought for being granted. She

would also submit that in the earlier round of litigation

when the acquisition was under challenge, matter got

landed before the Hon'ble Apex Court and an order came

to be passed on 11.04.1988 directing the State to allot

alternate land to petitioners which has not been done and as

such petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for in the

Special Civil Application.

C/SCA/4217/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021

[5] Per contra the learned Assistant Government Pleader

would submit that petition is liable to be dismissed on the

ground of delay and laches and the acquisition

proceedings have attained finality petitioners cannot

revive their prayer for acquisition being set aside. He

would hasten to add that direction issued by the Hon'ble

Apex Court dated 11.04.1998 in Civil Appeal No. 1432 of

1988 would be complied by the respondents as

undertaken in paragraph No. 14 of the affidavit dated

12.01.2021. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition

and / or suitable orders being passed in that regard.

[6] Having regard to the rival contentions raised at the

Bar, it requires to be noticed at the outset that petitioners

have no right to question the acquisition and seek for

award passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894 being quashed or the acquisition proceedings

being declared as having lapsed in view of subsequent

legislation by relying upon Section 24(2) of the Act,

inasmuch as acquisition proceedings has attained finality

C/SCA/4217/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021

before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 1432 of

1988 vide order dated 11.04.1988. Now what requires to

be done by the State is to provide 50% of the land to

each of the appellants calculated on the basis of the land

acquired from each of them and as more specifically

stated in the order dated 11.04.1988. For immediate

reference, the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated

11.04.1988 is extracted hereinbelow:

" ORDER

Special leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is agreed that the State of Gujarat would provide 50% extent of land to each of the appellants calculated on the basis of the land acquired from each of them. Such land should be cultivable and certified by the District Agricultural officer to be such and the land should not be located at a distance beyond 10 Kms., of the limit of the submerged area of the dam. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. This may not be treated as a precedent. No costs.

.........................J.

(Ranganath Misra)

.........................J.

(Murari Mohan Dutt New Delhi April 11, 1988"

C/SCA/4217/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021

[7] It is in pursuance to above said order and during the

pendency of said proceedings before the Hon'ble Apex

Court, a communication has been forwarded by the

respondents to the petitioners to select the traverse land

of the State Government and on account of petitioners

having not selected any land, the claim of the petitioners

for allotment of 50% of the land acquired has been kept in

cold-storage.

[8] No-doubt this petition is filed belatedly, namely, after

40 years and on this short ground itself, petitioners are

liable to be non-suited in the light of the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Karnataka Power

Corporation Limited versus K. Thangappan and

Another reported in (2006) 4 SCC 322 whereunder their

Lordships have held that submitting of memorials or

representations cannot justify a belated approach. In

other words, the cause of action for the petitioners to seek

alternate land having arisen on 11.04.1988, namely, on

the date the Hon'ble Apex Court passed the aforesaid

order and the petitioners claim to have submitted

C/SCA/4217/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021

memorials or representations to the authority would not

revive the dead cause of action. In fact, this proposition

also gets support from two other judgments of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case K. V. Rajalakshmiah Setty &

Another versus State of Mysore and Another

reported in AIR 1967 SC 993 and in the case of

Rabindranath Bose and Others versus Union of

India and Others reported in AIR 1970 SC 470 and on

this short ground itself, the petition can be dismissed.

However, we do not propose to do so, for reasons more

than one. Firstly, petitioners who are illiterate, not being

conversant with the worldly affairs and not being

conversant with court-craft and they being Adivasis and

there being an order already passed by the Hon'ble Apex

Court on 11.04.1988 directing the State to provide 50% of

the land acquired as more fully ordered thereunder, it

would be travesty of justice if State is allowed to take a

stand that said order would not be implemented.

Secondly, in the affidavit filed by the State and it is agreed

thereunder to allot 50% of land acquired. Hence, we

deem it proper to dispose of this petition by recording the

C/SCA/4217/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021

said undertaking, which is to the following effect:-

"13. It is humbly submitted that in the year 2017 again as per the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court the deputy Collector addressed a communication dated 23.08.2017 to the Collector Rajpipla requesting to take further appropriate steps. copy of the communication dated 23.08.2017 is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R9.

14. It is humbly submitted that the deponent undertakes to allot the land to the petitioners as per the order passed by the Hon'ble court and the deponent further undertakes to carry out any improvements which are required within time stipulated by this Hon'ble court provided that the applicants agree for getting such land as directed by Hon'ble Apex Court."

(Emphasis Supplied by us)

[9] Above undertaking given by the State would clearly

indicate that respondent has undertaken to allot land to

the petitioners as per the orders passed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court on 11.04.1988. Hence, we dispose of this

petition as under:

(i) Special Civil Application is allowed in part .

C/SCA/4217/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021

(ii) Respondents No.2 and 3 shall consider the

claim of the petitioners as directed by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1432 of 1988 on

11.04.1988 (Annexure-B) and pass orders thereon

expeditiously, at any rate, within an outer-limit of

one month from the date of receipt of copy of this

order. It is made clear that petitioners shall appear

before respondent No.3 on 24.12.2021 without

waiting for any further notice from the office of the

second respondent and it is made clear that in the

event of petitioners failing to appear on the said

date, the respondent No.3 shall proceed to

process the claim of the petitioners and pass

appropriate orders within the time limit fixed

hereinabove.

(iii) Insofar the prayer for acquisition being set

aside, the award dated 04.09.1996 passed under

Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as

well as the acquisition proceedings having lapsed

by virtue of Section 24(2) of the Act stands

C/SCA/4217/2020 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021

rejected or in other the words, the prayer made in

that regard stands dismissed / rejected. No order

as to costs.

[10] In view of the order passed in the main matter, Civil

Application (for fixing date of hearing) No.1 of 2021 does

not survive and stands rejected accordingly.

(ARAVIND KUMAR, C.J.)

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J.)

DHARMENDRA KUMAR