Divyeshbhai Mahendrabhai Patel vs Union Of India
2024 Latest Caselaw 682 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Divyeshbhai Mahendrabhai Patel vs Union Of India on 25 January, 2024

Author: Sunita Agarwal

Bench: Sunita Agarwal

                                                                                  NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/SCA/9330/2022                               ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024

                                                                                   undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9330 of 2022
==========================================================
                        DIVYESHBHAI MAHENDRABHAI PATEL
                                     Versus
                                UNION OF INDIA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS. KRUTI M SHAH(2428) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR MEET D KAKADIA(11896) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Respondent(s) No. 4,5
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 6,7
SERVED BY RPAD (N) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
       SUNITA AGARWAL
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE

                                Date : 25/01/2024

                         ORAL ORDER

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the

record.

2. The present petition is directed against the order dated

13.4.2022 passed by the competent authority in an application

moved by the petitioners seeking for reference of the dispute to

the Civil Court on the premise that there is a genuine and

bonafide dispute as to the rights, title and interest of the

claimants in the matter of disbursement of compensation of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9330/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024

undefined

acquired land. There is no dispute about the fact that the

petitioners herein, who are owners of the lands in question, had

executed registered sale deeds in the year 2012, namely

registered sale deed Nos.5604 and 5605 dated 3.10.2012 in

favour of respondent No.4 namely Vijaybhai Odhabhai Lalu and

respondent No.5 namely Badrubhai Bhikhubhai Kamliya.

3. Subsequently, two civil suits, namely Special Civil Suit

Nos.19 of 2021 and 20 of 2021 were filed before the Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Navsari, seeking for a relief of cancellation

of registered sale deeds executed in favour of respondent Nos.4

and 5 and with the prayer for declaration and permanent

injunction. It is an admitted fact of the matter that on an

application under Order XII Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure

filed by the defendant, both the suits had been dismissed by

separate orders of the same date, which is 21.7.2023. It is also

intimated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the

appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 21.7.2023

has also been dismissed. The fact remains that the claim made

by the petitioners herein of having right, title and interest in the

lands in question, even after execution of the registered sale

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9330/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024

undefined

deeds dated 3.10.2012 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5,

does not survive.

4. However, it is sought to be argued by Ms. Kruti M. Shah,

learned advocate for the petitioners, that the dismissal of the

suits seeking relief of cancellation of sale deed is a subsequent

event and that fact itself would not attach validity to the order

impugned dated 13.4.2022 which has been passed in utter

violation of the provisions of Section 3H(4) of the National

Highways Act 1956.

5. The submission is that as soon as the objections are raised

as to entitlement of the claimant to receive compensation by the

rival parties, the competent authority has no option but to refer

the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of the

original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the

land is situated. We do not find substance in the said argument,

for the simple reason that Section 3H(4) of the National

Highways Act 1956 talks of a genuine and bonafide dispute,

which may arise in the matter of disbursement of compensation

or apportionment of the amount or any part thereof. A person

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/9330/2022 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2024

undefined

who has parted away with his right in the lands in question by

executing registered sale deeds cannot be said to have left with

any right, title or interest in the lands in question till there was

a declaration by the Civil Court in the suit filed seeking the

relief of cancellation of the sale deed. Mere fact of filing of the

civil suit praying for the relief of cancellation of sale deed

executed in the year, that too in the year 2021, after the

acquisition proceedings were conducted with reference to the

lands in question cannot be said to give rise to a genuine and

bonafide dispute to refer the dispute to the Civil Court by

exercising jurisdiction under Section 3H(4) of the National

Highways Act 1956, on the premise that the objectors/ the

petitioners herein were agitating their rights in the acquired

land.

6. In view of the above, we DISMISS the writ petition as

misconceived. Notice is discharged.

Sd/-

(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )

Sd/-

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) OMKAR