Gujarat High Court
Ishwarbhai Chandulal Patel vs Deputy Collector And Special Land ... on 28 January, 2021
Bench: Mr. Justice Nath, Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/SCA/15692/2020 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15692 of 2020
==========================================================
ISHWARBHAI CHANDULAL PATEL
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MM SAIYED(1806) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI PATHAK, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP(99) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 28/01/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH)
1. Heard Shri M.M.Saiyed, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Ms.Shruti Pathak, learned Assistant
Government Pleader for the State respondents.
2. On the previous occasion we had granted time to
the learned Assistant Government Pleader to obtain
instructions in the matter and file counter
affidavit, if necessary. As the issue is purely
legal, Ms. Pathak states that the affidavit would not
be required and that she is ready to assist the Court
on the legal issue.
C/SCA/15692/2020 ORDER
3. The application filed by the writ petitioner
under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984
has since been rejected by the Deputy Collector/
Special Land Acquisition Officer, District Bharuch
vide order dated 16.09.2020 (AnnexureE) on the
ground that the notifications under Section 4 being
prior in point of time to the 1984 Amendment Act, as
such the benefits under Section 28A would not be
admissible/available to the petitioner. The
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the premise on which the application is
rejected is fallacious and in the teeth of the
settled law on the point. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the date of
the notification under Section 4 is 21.07.1983,
Section 6 notification is dated 04.07.1984, whereas
the 1984 Amendment in the Land Acquisition Act came
to be in force with effect from 24.09.1984. Further,
the award has been given on 16.08.1986 after the
amendment. Ms. Pathak does not dispute the dates as
mentioned above and referred to by the learned
counsel for the petitioner. Further, the above issue
has already been settled by a Division Bench of this
C/SCA/15692/2020 ORDER
Court in the case of Legal Heirs of Late and Wd/o.
Madhusudan Dalsukhram Bhatt vs. Special Land
Acquisition Officer, reported in 2017 (0) AIJELHC
237336, wherein it has been held that merely because
a notification under Section 4 had been issued prior
to the amending Act, 1984, the applicability of
Section 28A cannot be excluded. The Division Bench
had placed reliance upon earlier judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and
others vs. Pradeep Kumari and others, reported in
1995 (2) SCC 736.
4. In view of the above legal proposition which
Ms.Pathak very fairly concedes is the settled view as
on date, the impugned order passed by the Deputy
Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer cannot
be sustained. It is accordingly quashed. The Deputy
Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer (the
sole respondent) is directed to pass fresh orders on
merits on the application of the petitioner dated
19.03.2013 under Section 28A of the 1894 Act, filed
as AnnexureC to the petition, within a period of six
weeks from the date of production of the certified
C/SCA/15692/2020 ORDER
copy of this order strictly in accordance to law.
5. The petition is accordingly allowed.
(VIKRAM NATH, CJ)
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
