Vishva Mangalam Shardagram ... vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 7999 Guj

                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/SCA/10073/2021                             ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023

                                                                                 undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10073 of 2021
                                 With
        CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023
           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10073 of 2021
================================================================
     VISHVA MANGALAM SHARDAGRAM DHUNDHAR, HIMMATNAGAR
                       SARVJANIK TRUST
                            Versus
                      STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MEHUL S SHAH, SR. COUNSEL WITH MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4,5,6,7,8
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
       SUNITA AGARWAL
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                            Date : 01/11/2023
                             ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

Heard learned Senior Counsel Shri Mehul S. Shah assisted by Shri R.K.Mansuri, learned advocate for the petitioner, in the writ petition.

2. The present writ petition has been filed against an order dated 27.4.2021 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar in Civil Misc. Application No.6 of 2019 and Civil Misc. Application No.20 of 2020 whereby the petitioner herein sought for disbursement of the compensation amount awarded by the Reference Court on 30.10.2018 in L.A.R. No.39 of 2007. Further prayer in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10073/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023

undefined

writ petition is to direct the Reference Court to disburse the compensation amount in favour of the petitioner.

3. The relevant facts to decide the issue at hands are that the petitioner herein is claiming right in the property in question on the basis of a registered sale deed dated 1.1.1992 and mutation entry No.699. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ["Act of 1894" for short] acquiring the land in question had been published on 27.5.2004 and 28.2.2005; respectively. On 4.4.2005, notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 was issued calling all interested persons to submit their claims. It is an admitted fact of the matter that a Regular Civil Suit No.91 of 2005 had been filed by the respondent objector on 16.7.2005 before Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar seeking a declaration that the Power of Attorney dated 26.9.1990 was without permission or knowledge and the subsequent sale deed dated 11.2.1991 based on said Power of Attorney was an outcome of forged signature of the then vendor.

It seems that because of the pendency of the civil suit, the applications moved by the petitioner for disbursement of the compensation has been dismissed by the orders impugned which are the subject matter of challenge herein.

4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the civil suit namely, Regular Civil Suit No.91

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10073/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023

undefined

of 2005 has been decided vide judgment and order dated 30.8.2022. The judgment of the civil court is not on record, though the decree has been placed on record to assert that the civil suit has been decided. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that on the date of moving of the applications by the petitioner who is a transferee of the property in question on the basis of the sale deed dated 1.1.1992 and was party to the civil suit, the suit namely, Regular Civil Suit No.91 of 2005 was pending. In view of the relief as prayed for in the said suit, in our considered opinion, there was no question of disbursement of compensation to the petitioner. We, therefore, do not find any error in the decision of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar to reject the applications during the pendency of the suit. The orders impugned also record that the applications moved by the petitioner had been dismissed at that stage itself.

5. However, in case of any further decision in the civil suit or future proceedings, it is always open for the petitioner to seek execution of the award passed by the Reference Court by moving an appropriate application before the competent court. In any case, no relief in the nature of mandamus to issue direction to the Reference Court to disburse the amount of compensation can be granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present writ petition is accordingly, dismissed being devoid

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/10073/2021 ORDER DATED: 01/11/2023

undefined

of merits.

6. It is further clarified that the dismissal of the present writ petition or any of the observations made hereinabove or any observations in the orders impugned will not come in the way of the parties.

Pending application stands disposed of.

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) KAUSHIK D. CHAUHAN