Gujarat High Court
Rajnikant S/O Somabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 6 February, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5359/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO.
5359 of 2024
In R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 396 of 2025
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 396 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15318 of 2022
=============================================
RAJNIKANT S/O SOMABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN A SHAH(5412) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P.
MAYEE
Date : 06/02/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Delay of 170 days has been explained to the satisfaction
of the Court. The delay condonation application is allowed. The
delay in filing the review application is hereby condoned. The
application shall be treated to have been filed within time. The
Office shall allot regular number to the application.
2. Coming to the merits of the review application, it is
pertinent to note that the only submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner to demonstrate an error apparent on the
face of the record in passing the judgment and order dated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5359/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
09.10.2023 is that the Court has not considered the contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the order passed
by the Deputy Secretary dated 25.09.2021.
3. It is sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the
petitioner based on the averments made in the writ petition that
when the acquisition of the land in question had taken place in the
year 1973 and award was passed, for the purpose of acquiring
600ft. of land from the riverbed, on the agitation made by the
farmers, the State Government had agreed to the effect that only
50 ft. of land abetting river Tapi from the riverbed will be acquired
and the rest of the land was decided to be given back to the
original landholder.
4. It is contended that the petitioners have not been paid
a single penny towards compensation till date. It was further
argued that in the Regular Suit No.401 of 1985, a withdrawal
pursis was submitted on account of the declaration made on behalf
of the State Respondents to the effect that the land to the extent of
only 50 ft. from the riverbed would be acquired and the rest of the
land shall be given back to the petitioner to the extent of 550 ft.
from the riverbed and would be released accordingly.
5. We may note that though the statements are made in
paragraph Nos. '3.6' and '3.7' of the writ petition, about the
withdrawal of the Civil Suit No.401 of 1985 on the withdrawal
pursis on account of the declaration dated 28.07.2003 made by the
State Government, but the order passed by the Civil Court, if any,
on the alleged withdrawal pursis is not on record. A perusal of page
No. '34' of the paperbook indicates a handwritten order over the
withdrawal pursis, which is illegible. There is no statement in the
writ petition about the content of the order passed by the Civil
Court.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5359/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
6. It is further pointed out that the petitioner had filed
another Civil Suit namely Special Civil Suit No.439 of 2007, which
has also been withdrawn.
7. From a perusal of the order impugned daetd
25.02.2021 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department,
Government of Gujarat on the application dated 19.04.2012 filed by
the father of the petitioner herein namely Somabhai Devjibhai Patel
seeking for release of the land in question, pertinent is to note the
observations made therein.
8. It is noted therein that pursuant to the order dated
18.06.2019 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application
No.7883 of 2019, wherein direction has been given to consider the
prayer made by the petitioner, the Revenue Department, in the
presence of the Secretary, Land Reforms and Chairman, had
afforded the opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner on
08.02.2021. The matter was also sent for opinion by the Irrigation
Department. As per the opinion submitted, there as a devastating
flood and for protection of Ved Village, the embankment that was
constructed, was about 500 ft. from the existing river bank and, as
a result, thereafter, upto almost 1998, there was no big flood in the
Tapi river.
9. In August' 2006, again due to heavy floods in Tapi river
on both banks, heavy damage were caused. The water of the floods
had crossed the embankment and entered the city. The need for
evaluating the Tapi Pada Yojana was, therefore, felt and the, task of
physical model study of the Tapi river was assigned to the Gujarat
Engineering Research Institute (GERI). It was noted that the open
land between the Tapi embankment to the river bank is required to
be kept free from encroachment in view of the safety of Tapi
embankment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5359/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
10. It is also opined therein that in view of the possibility of
huge flood, even in future, if the embankment breaks, immediately
on war footing, the earth from the open land can be taken and
repair work can be carried out. The Irrigation Department has,
thus, opined that if the acquired remaining land is returned from
the embankment and in case of breaking of embankment in future
there would be no available open land to deal with the emergency.
11. It is clearly opined that in the area between the river
bank and the existing construction due to rise in the water level,
there are possibilities of the additional areas getting submerged
and such an experience of the flood was faced in August' 2006. It
is, therefore, imperative that the land from the river bank to the
embankment remains open and for this reason, under the Tapi
Pada Yojana, the land acquired cannot be returned and such a
decision has been taken in September 2016.
12. Having noticed that there has been a thoughtful
consideration at the level of the State Government over the
application moved by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner
for release of the land in question under Section 48 of the Land
Acquisition Act' 1896, it is not possible for us to review the said
decision as the Court of appeal to attach illegality thereto.
13. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that a decision had already been taken by the State Government in
the year 2003, while submitting withdrawal pursis in the suit of
1985 filed by the predecessor in interest of the petitioner is of no
consequence, inasmuch as, a conscious decision has been taken
with consideration of the changed circumstances. The findings
returned by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department being
factual in nature, correctness thereof cannot be examined within
the scope of the writ jurisdiction.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/5359/2024 ORDER DATED: 06/02/2025
undefined
14. As regards the contention made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the petitioner has not received compensation
for the remaining area of the land in question, of which he is
seeking release under Section 48, suffice it to say that we have
already kept it open for the petitioner to approach the competent
authority for disbursement of compensation, if not already paid.
15. With the above, the present review application is
dismissed, being devoid of merits.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)
SAHIL S. RANGER
