Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Pachanbhai Gohil vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 14 February, 2024
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2002/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2002 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2002 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 2 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2002 of 2021
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI PACHANBHAI GOHIL
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DHARA P BHATT(7530) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PARTH H BHATT(6381) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 14/02/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. The Civil Applications seeking for joining parties in view of the
order dated 19.01.2024 passed by us, are hereby allowed. All the
persons, who are sought to be impleaded as petitioner and
respondent herein, are permitted to be incorporated in the array of
parties.
2. The petitioner herein is one of the co-owners of survey No.87
paiki, Village Timba, Taluka Wadhwan, a portion of which is in the
ownership of the respondent Nos.3 and 4, whose names could find
in the original award dated 23.07.1998. The contention in the Writ
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2002/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
Petition is that the mother of the petitioner, viz. Samuben
Pachanbhai Gohil had purchased the land bearing survey No.87
paiki, admeasuring Acre 5-23 Gunthas of Village Timba, Taluka
Wadhwan by way of registered sale deed dated 21.09.1990. The
mutation entry No.1354 was made in Village Form No.6 on
27.09.1990 pursuant to the said sale deed and was duly certified on
30.11.1990. The mother of the petitioner had died in the year 2010
and thereafter, the name of the petitioner and other co-owners were
recorded in the revenue record. In the year 1995, the acquisition
proceedings for construction of Narmada canal i. e. Botad Branch
Canal was undertaken, whereby the lands of Village Timba, wherein
the land of the petitioner is situated, were acquired. The
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were published on 20.04.1995
and 20.08.1996 respectively. The notice under Section 9 was issued
on 23.05.1997 and the award acquiring the area of survey No.87
paiki of Village Timba in LAQ Case No.235 of 1995 was declared on
23.07.1998.
3. It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the canal was passing through the land of the
petitioner and actually, the land of the petitioner in survey No.87
paiki was used for the purpose of construction of canal, however,
the award was prepared in the name of other persons, i. e.
respondent Nos.3 and 4, whose heirs are sought to be brought on
record. There is a reference of the application dated 05.10.2006
given by the mother of the petitioner to bring the said anomaly to
the notice of the Deputy Executive Engineer. It is stated that on the
request made by the mother of the petitioner, the award dated
23.07.1998 was amended on 28.02.2018 by incorporating the name
of the petitioner being beneficiary of the award. However,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2002/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
thereafter, the amended award dated 28.02.2018 was recalled on
24.02.2020 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Yojna,
Surendranagar, noticing that the writ petition filed by the petitioner
before this Court had been dismissed as withdrawn. The sole
contention for challenging the order dated 24.02.2020 is that no
notice or opportunity was granted to the petitioner before recalling
the amended award dated 28.02.2018. Noticing that the original
award dated 23.07.1998 with respect to survey No.87paiki
admeasuring 1-54-53 was in the name of the newly impleaded
respondent Nos.3 and 4 and further, there may be other heirs of the
original claimant, viz. Samuben Pachanbhai Gohil, by order dated
19.01.2024, we permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to
file impleadment application to bring on record all the heirs of
Samuben Pachanbhai Gohil and the persons interested in whose
names, the award dated 23.07.1998 was passed. The amendment
application has already been allowed.
4. Be that as it may, suffice it to note that the claim of the
petitioner/predecessor in interest being beneficiary of the award is
solely on the basis that they claim to be owner of a portion of survey
No.87 paiki. The contention in the Writ Petition that the names of
wrong persons have been disclosed in the award and hence, the
petitioners have been excluded from the benefit of the award, is of
on consequence, in as much as, the award by the Land Acquisition
Officer is prepared to determine the compensation of the acquired
land and it has nothing to do with the right, title or interest of the
persons interested. The inquiry with regard to the persons
interested being entitled to the award is made at two stages. Firstly,
at the stage of Section 9 notice, when a public notice is issued
calling upon all the persons. The public notice is issued stating
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2002/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons
interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the
Collector at a time and place therein mentioned, and to state the
nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and
particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and
their objections (if any) to the measurements made under section 8.
The second inquiry about entitlement of the persons interested is
made after declaration of the award under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, which is governed by Section 30, which
provides that if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the
same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or
any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to
the decision of the Court.
5. In the instant case, there is no assertion in the Writ Petition
that on issuance of public notice under Section 9 on 23.05.1997, the
predecessor in interest of the petitioner had approached the
Collector to state about their respective interest in the land. There is
nothing on record that any objection has been filed, or any claim
has been made by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner
before declaration of the award under Section 11 on 23.07.1998
that they are persons interested in the land in question and were
entitled to the benefit of compensation. The Writ Petition is silent
about any objection filed by the predecessor in interest of the
petitioner in the proceedings of making an award by taking an
interest in the determination of the compensation amount. No
application seeking for disbursement of the compensation has been
filed even after making of the award on 23.07.1998. From the
statements made in the Writ Petition, it seems that for the first time,
the dispute was raised with regard to the payment of compensation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2002/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
to the predecessor in interest of the newly added respondents by
moving an application on 05.10.2006. The error committed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer in modifying/amending the original
award dated 23.07.1998 by passing an order dated 28.02.2018
has been rectified by passing the impugned order dated
24.02.2020. It may be further recorded that the predecessor in
interest of the respondent Nos.3 and 4 have also filed a reference
under section 18 being Land Reference Case No.74 of 2000, which
has been finally decided by the competent authority vide judgment
and order dated 25.01.2008 as per the statement in paragraph 4.7
of the Writ Petition.
6. From the above noted facts, it is evident that the petitioner is
trying to raise a dispute with regard the claim of the predecessor in
interest of the newly added private respondents about the benefit of
compensation under the award dated 23.07.1998 only on the
premise that the predecessor in interest of the petitioner were
owner of the portion of survey No.87 paiki, which admittedly is a
large piece of land. On the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that no notice or opportunity has been granted to the
petitioner before recalling the amended award dated 28.02.2018,
suffice it to note that the Special Land Acquisition Officer become
functus officio after making of the award and was not entitled to
make any amendment in the original award. The only power given
to the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Collector is to make
correction of clerical errors under Section 13(A) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, which too is confined to the applications
made within six months from the date of the award.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2002/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/02/2024
undefined
7. In view of the above discussion, we find the challenge
absolutely misconceived. The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/-
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
cmk
