Gujarat High Court
Mahipalsinh Vikramsinh Jadeja vs State Of Gujarat on 28 July, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2834/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2834 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2841 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2844 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2843 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2895 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2896 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2907 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2916 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2928 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2953 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2973 of 2025
==========================================================
MAHIPALSINH VIKRAMSINH JADEJA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANAND R PATEL(2424) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 28/07/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. All the writ petitions, raise a common question for
consideration before this Court. They have been heard
together with the consent of the learned counsels for the
parties and are being decided by this common judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2834/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
2. Perused the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the
original petitioners in compliance of the order dated
06.03.2025 passed by us. The petitioners herein are farmers
who have been non-suited vide order dated
01.08.2019/24.09.2019 from making reference under Section
64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
("Act of 2013" for short), on the premise that the application
moved by them under Section 64 of the Act, 2013 dated
16.03.2018, was beyond the limitation prescribed under
Section 64 sub Section (2) of the Act, 2013.
3. Pertinent is to note that the original award applying
Factor-1 was passed on 02.07.2015 and the said award was
modified by the application of the Factor-2 vide award dated
21.11.2017. After receipt of the Award dated 21.11.2017, the
petitioners/land holders filed a reference application on
16.03.2018 in the office of the Collector asking him to make a
reference to the competent authority namely the Land
Acquisition and Resettlement Authority constituted under the
Act, 2013, in accordance with the provisions of Section 64 of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2834/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
the Act, 2013.
4. These applications have been rejected on
01.08.2019/24.09.2019 solely on the ground that the original
award was passed in the year 2015 and the application made
on 16.03.2018 is beyond limitation prescribed in Section 64
of the Act, 2013.
5. A perusal of the order dated 01.08.2019/24.09.2019
passed by the competent authority namely the Office of the
Collector makes it clear that it was an illegal exercise of
power, inasmuch as,the limitation was required to be
computed from the date of making of the amended award i.e.
dated 21.11.2017. Taking note of the clause (a) of the proviso
to Sub-Section 2 of Section 64, pertinent is to note that the
limitation prescribed therein for making of an application for
reference under Section 64 of the Act is six weeks from the
date of Collector's Award, which was not over by 16.03.2018.
The fact that the original award of the year 2015 was made by
applying Factor-1 and amended award was passed on
21.11.2017 by the application of multiplication Factor-2 as per
the decisions of this Court, is sufficient to record that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2834/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
original award of the year 2015, where market value was
computed by applying Factor-1 stood amended with the
subsequent award dated 21.11.2017 with the application of
multiplication Factor-2.
6. There was no question for the petitioners to make any
reference against the original award when he was agitating
his right for enhancement of the market value by application
of multiplication Factor-2 which was accepted only with the
making of the amended award dated 21.11.2017. The order
dated 01.08.2019/24.09.2019 passed by the competent
authority in rejection of the application dated 16.03.2018 for
making of the reference, therefore, cannot be sustained.
7. We may also note that the proviso to Sub Section (1) of
Section 64 mandates the Collector to make a reference to the
appropriate authority within a period of 30 days from the date
of receipt of the application. In the instant case, almost one
year was taken at the ends of the competent authority to
decide the application filed by the petitioners on 16.03.2018.
8. It seems that after rejection of the application, on a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2834/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
wrong legal advice, the petitioners had approached the Land
Acquisition Authority seeking for its intervention in the matter
of rejection of the application vide order dated
01.08.2019/24.09.2019. The Land Acquisition Authority had
rejected the said application on 26.08.2022 on the ground that
it had no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
9. It seems that after dismissal of his application vide order
dated 26.08.2022, there was further delay in approaching
this Court and a writ petition was filed only in the month of
December 2024. For the long delay on the part of the
petitioners in approaching this Court in challenging the order
passed by the Land Acquisition Authority dated 26.08.2022,
who was approached on a wrong legal advice, explanation has
been offered in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners.
10. Taking note of the averments made in the additional
affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners, in compliance of the
order dated 06.03.2025, we are of the considered view that at
the first instance, the petitioners had been non-suited on
account of an illegal order passed by the competent authority
in rejection of their application which was filed well within the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2834/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
limitation prescribed in section 64(2) of the Act, 2013. The
order of rejection of the application for making a reference
filed by the petitioners passed by the competent authority on
01.08.2019/24.09.2019, Annexure "B" to the writ petition,
therefore, cannot be sustained.
11. While setting aside the order dated
01.08.2019/24.09.2019 passed by the In-charge Deputy
Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada
Yojana) Gandhidham, we relegate the matter for making a
reference on the application dated 16.03.2018 to the
appropriate authority under Section 64 of the Act, 2013
immediately, within a period of 15 days from today.
12. On such reference being made before the appropriate
authority, all considerations on the merits of the application
dated 16.03.2018, on the points of reference, shall be made in
accordance with the provisions of Section 64 of the Act, 2013.
For the laches on the part of the petitioners which is sought to
be agitated before us by the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the State-respondents, we are of the
considered view that once the petitioners have been non-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2834/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
suited at the ends of the Special Land Acquisition Officer by
passing an illegal order, such an issue cannot be entertained.
With the above, writ petitions stand allowed. No order as
to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
BINA SHAH
