Shankarbhai Ravjibhai Brahman ... vs Special Land Acquisition Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 8600 Guj

       C/SCA/5016/2019                                 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5016 of 2019
==========================================================
              SHANKARBHAI RAVJIBHAI BRAHMAN (DESEASED)
                               Versus
                  SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRATIK Y JASANI(5325) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1.1,1.2
for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR JAYNEEL PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR N R DESAI(6504) for the Respondent(s) No. 4.1,5
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Respondent(s) No. 4.1,5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
                  Date : 28/09/2022
                   ORAL ORDER

Learned advocate for the petitioner has tendered a draft amendment. Amendment is allowed in terms of the draft. Same shall be carried out forthwith.

2. Mr Pratik Y. Jasani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners states that the present writ petition, is seeking to challenge the order dated 7.2.2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur below application Exh.6 in Civil Misc. Application no.16/2016.

3. Mr Jasani, learned advocate submitted that the land in question was in occupation of the father of the petitioner no.2 and his name, was reflected in the revenue record. As a result of the land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'), an award was passed dated 24.5.2000, awarding compensation to the father of the petitioner/petitioners.

3.1. Mr Jasani, learned advocate submitted that after the award, the petitioner submitted Civil Misc. Application no.16 of 2016, seeking modification of the cause-title, as the father of

C/SCA/5016/2019 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2022

petitioners/petitioners claim/s to be the owner of the land. Objection has been raised by the private respondents on the ground that they are the original owners. It is also submitted that an application Exh.6 was filed in Civil Misc. Application no.16 of 2016 which, came to be rejected vide order dated 7.2.2019 and being aggrieved, the petitioners, have preferred the captioned writ petition.

3.2. It is submitted that this Court, while issuing the notice, has been kind enough to direct the authorities to invest the amount deposited, in a nationalised bank for a stipulated period and the interest accrued thereon, was directed not to be disbursed.

4. Mr N.R. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.4.1 and 5 states that the private respondents are the original owners and therefore, they preferred a reference application under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, challenging the award before the Civil Court. The said reference application, has been numbered as L.A.R. no.539 of 2000. The said L.A.R. no.539 of 2000, came to be partly allowed vide judgment dated 11.5.2016.

4.1. Mr Desai, learned advocate has tendered the affidavit of the private respondent no.4.1 and the newly impleaded respondent no.5.1. Same is directed to be taken on record. Mr Desai, learned advocate states that the respondent no.5, has recently passed away and his heir, i.e. proposed respondent no.5.1, has been impleaded in the proceedings before the Court below. It is urged that the heir of respondent no.5, be permitted to be joined in the captioned proceedings as well. It is submitted that he has received instructions to appear on behalf of the newly added respondent no.5.1 and will be filing the vakalatnama during the course of the day. Mr Desai, learned advocate has also declared before this Court that the private respondents, shall not request for any disbursement of the

C/SCA/5016/2019 ORDER DATED: 28/09/2022

amount till the Civil Misc. Application no.16 of 2016, is finally disposed of.

5. Today, Mr Jasani and Mr Desai, learned advocates, jointly submitted that the parties agree that either of them, will not claim any disbursement of the amount deposited and invested in the nationalised bank. It has been informed that the amount, has been invested periodically.

6. Mr Jasani, learned advocate, has urged that the private respondents, shall adhere to the statement made before this Court. In view of the aforesaid statement, Mr Jasani, learned advocate, seeks permission to withdraw the captioned writ petition. Request is acceded to. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn, leaving open all the contentions available in law to the respective parties. No order as to costs.

7. Needless to clarify that this Court, has not entered into the merits of the matter and the learned advocates shall abide by and adhere to the statements made and recorded in this order.

8. Learned advocates have jointly urged that the Court concerned, be directed to decide the Civil Misc. Application no.16 of 2016 at the earliest, since the same is pending since the year 2016. The Court concerned, is directed to decide the Civil Misc. Application no.16 of 2016 at the earliest and not later than one year from today.

9. Direct service is permitted.

(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) BINOY B PILLAI