Gujarat High Court
Jigar Developers vs State Of Gujarat on 2 July, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 30/04/2025
Pronounced On : 02/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20062 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
JIGAR DEVELOPERS
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR DIGANT M POPAT AND MR KARTIKEY KANOJIA (5385) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS MAITHILI MEHTA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ANUJ K TRIVEDI(6251) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Mr. Digant M. Popat and Mr. Kartikey Kanojia,
learned advocates for the petitioner, Ms. Maithili Mehta,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondent State and Mr. Anuj K. Trivedi, learned
advocate for respondent no.3.
2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner initially
challenged the notification issued under Section 10A
dated 16.05.2023; under Section 11(1) dated
12.07.2023; and notices under Section 21(1) and 21(2)
dated 07.10.2023 and 18.10.2023 under the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(in short as "the Act' 2013").
3. By means of the amendment allowed on 22.12.2013, the
prayers to seek quashing of the notification under
Section 19 dated 06.10.2023; the award under Section
23 dated 10.11.2023; and the possession receipt dated
22.11.2023, have been added.
4. In essence, the petitioner seeks to challenge the entire
acquisition proceedings beginning from the notification
issued under Section 10A whereby the requirement of
Social Impact Assessment Study under Section 4 of the
Act' 2013 has been dispensed with.
5. The petitioner herein is the purchaser of the land in
question, which was originally an Agricultural New
tenure land. It is stated in the Writ petition that the said
land was converted from new tenure to old tenure on
payment of premium and further from agricultural to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
non-agricultural purposes by paying necessary premium
at the relevant point of time. In the year 2000, Town
Planning Scheme No.42 was sought to be implemented
by the Municipal corporation and the State Government
and under the said Scheme, the subject land was sought
to be acquired and reserved for public utility.
Necessary procedure was undertaken and after
acquisition of the land of the petitioner, Final Plot No.
134 was allotted.
6. It is contended that after purchase of the land and
payment of premium, for getting necessary permission,
the petitioner had applied for construction of High rise
building. However, due to the ongoing procedure under
the Town Planning Act, the Corporation did not process
the plan as submitted by the petitioner. In the
meantime, the petitioner came to know about another
proposed acquisition of the subject land for construction
of Metro project in the District Surat. Apprehending
acquisition, the petitioner made representation to the
officers of the Metro Rail Corporation raising objection
about the acquisition of the land of the petitioner for
construction of Metro train station. A copy of such
representation is appended as Annexure 'H' to the Writ
petition.
7. It is contended that the petitioner made another
representation dated 22.05.2018 to the Advisor (PD),
Delhi Metro Rail Corporation, New Delhi with regard to
any acquisition contemplated for the subject land. A
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
prompt reply dated 29.05.2018 was received by the
petitioner from the said authority assuring that the
representation of the petitioner will be duly considered.
Thereafter, the petitioner received no response and filed
an application dated 26.07.2018 under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 to verify the status of the Metro
Station entry and exit point. The submission is that, in
reply thereto, the petitioner was given the copy of the
documents of the proposed entry and exit points, which
categorically show that the said points do not fall on the
petitioner's land, rather they were shown on the land
bearing Block no. 250, which is adjoining land to the
land of the petitioner.
8. Since there was no proposal to acquire the petitioner's
land and after getting confirmation from the concerned
authorities that there was no plan for acquisition of the
petitioner's land, the petitioner made an application
seeking Development permission along with necessary
plans and documents to the concerned authorities.
Apart from taking opinion of various departments, the
City Engineer had also sought opinion from Gujarat
Metro Rail Corporation (GMRC) vide letter dated
13.06.2021. In reply to the same, the GMRC vide letter
dated 25.05.2021, gave No-objection for the subject land
after keeping margin of 20 metres from via-duct. These
communications are appended as Annexure 'K' colly to
the Writ petition.
9. The submission is that the layout plan for construction of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
a Low rise building on payment of necessary fee was
approved by the Surat Municipal Corporation (SMC) as
the land was an old tenure and non-agricultural
permission was already granted. After the petitioner
initiated the process of developing the subject land as
per the layout plan and invested manpower, resources
and money, to the utter shock and surprise of the
petitioner, a notification dated 16.05.2023 was issued in
the newspaper on 30.05.2023 under Section 10A of the
Act' 2013, whereby the petitioner's land was sought to
be acquired for Metro train station.
10. On 06.06.2023, the petitioner submitted objections along
with all necessary details, however, these objections
were rejected outrightly on the plea of non-attachment
of No-Objection Certificate of the GMRC, which was
actually issued on 25.05.2021. We may record, at the
outset, that the learned counsel for the petitioner during
the course of argument would submit that he is not
challenging the notification under Section 10A for
dispensation of Section 4, i.e. requirement of Social
Impact Assessment Study, on any of the grounds
available therein.
11. Proceeding further, the notification dated 12.07.2023
was issued under Section 11(1) of the Act' 2013
intimating the intention of the State Government to
acquire the land in question for construction of Metro
rail station. It is contended in the Writ petition that on
05.08.2023, the petitioner made another representation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
along with the No-Objection Certificate and had applied
under the RTI. On 03.10.2023, the petitioner filed a
representation before the Collector, Surat and the
concerned Secretary, Gandhinagar, but no response was
received by him. The GMRC, however, had replied the
representation of the petitioner on 17.10.2023 by
annexing the communication dated 10.07.2023
previously issued by the GMRC, without application of
mind.
12. Amongst various grounds taken in the Writ petition filed
on 03.11.2023 (registered on 23.11.2023), the challenge
to the notification under Section 19 dated 06.10.2023
has been raised by way of amendment, on the ground
that the statutory process has not been followed with in
the process of acquisition. To substantiate the grounds
to assail the notification of acquisition under Section 19
of the Act' 2013 and the proceedings conducted
thereafter, the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is largely based on the procedure prescribed
in Section 11 of the Act' 2013.
13. It was argued that as per Section 11, the notification
issued on 12.07.2023 in the Official Gazette, was
required to be published in two daily newspapers
circulating in the locality of which one should be in the
regional language. Apart from the above, there was a
requirement of posting the notification on the Notice
board of the Collector's office. All these requirements of
publication of the notification under Section 11(1)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
prescribed in clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) were
required to be strictly followed looking to the nature of
the Act being expropriatory legislation.
14. The contention is that the notification under Section 11
was published in Gujarati newspaper on 29.07.2023,
whereas in the English newspaper, it was published on
28.09.2023. The date on which the notification was
posted on the notice board of the Collector's office is
stated to be 11.08.2023. The submission is that the last
date of publication of the notification under Section 11
as per the procedure prescribed in sub-section (1), as
such, would be 28.09.2023, when it was published in the
English newspaper.
15. Referring to sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Act'
2013, it was submitted that the requirement of
publishing in the newspapers circulating in the locality is
with the purpose to intimate the public at large as per
the notification issued under sub-section (1) of Section
11, is of the details namely, a statement of the public
purposes involved, reasons necessitating the
displacement of affected persons, summary of the Social
Impact Assessment report, if any.
16. Referring to Section 15 of the Act, 2013, it was argued
that it provides for grant of opportunity of hearing to the
persons interested in any land notified for acquisition
under Section 11(1). sixty days' time from the date of
publication of the preliminary notification to object to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the requirement of the land for public purpose, has been
provided to persons interested in such lands. Sub-
section (1) of Section 15, thus, confers a valuable right
upon the land holders to object to (a) the area and
suitability of land proposed to be acquired; (b)
justification offered for public purpose; (c) the findings
of the Social Impact Assessment report.
17. As per the procedure prescribed in sub-section (2),
Section 15, on every objection made to the Collector in
writing, the Collector shall have to afford the objector an
opportunity of being heard in person or by an authorised
person or an advocate. After hearing all such objections
and making such further inquiry, if necessary in his
opinion, the Collector is required to make a report (one
or more reports) in respect to the land notified in sub-
section (1) of Section 11 containing his
recommendations on the objections, together with the
record of the proceedings held by him along with such
other further report required under sub-section (2) for
the decision of the State Government. The submission is
that the 60 days' time to file objection provided in sub-
section (1) of Section 15 is to be computed from the last
date of the publication of the preliminary notification
[under Section 11(1)], which is 28.09.2023.
18. The submission is that in the instant case, 60 days'
statutory time period has not been provided to the
petitioner to file his objection, inasmuch as, the
notification under Section 19(1) was published within a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
period of one week on 06.10.2023 from the last date of
the publication of the preliminary notification under
Section 11 in the English newspaper, which is
28.09.2023. The contention is that this act of issuance
of the acquisition notification under Section 19 of the
Act' 2013 within a period of one week from the last date
of the publication of the preliminary notification in the
newspaper, has resulted in deprivation of the valuable
rights of the petitioner to raise objection and seek
opportunity of personal hearing. It was vehemently
argued that all stages for publication of the acquisition
notification under Section 11 were required to be
followed and Section 19 notification could have been
issued only after expiry of 60 days from the last date of
the publication of the preliminary notification and
violation of the procedure demonstrates procedural
lapse in conducting acquisition proceedings, which
caused prejudice to the land holders, including the
petitioner herein.
19. The second submission is that in the preliminary
notification under Section 11, the total area of the land
in question proposed for acquisition was 185.76 sq.
mtrs. However, in the final notification under Section 19,
it was increased to 283 sq. mtrs. The submission is that,
in fact, the notification under Section 10A also refers to
the area of 185. 76 sq. mtrs. of the land in question. The
exemption from conducting Social Impact Assessment
Study, thus, can be applied only to the area notified
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
under Section 10A. Further, Section 10A was never
revised before publication of the notification under
Section 19 for the increased area of total 283 sq. mtrs. of
the land in question. Moreover, as no fresh proposal
was published under Section 11 for the additional area
as against what was notified in the notification dated
12.07.2023 under Section 11, the petitioner has been
denied the opportunity of hearing to object to the
proposal for acquisition for the additional area. The
notification under Section 19, which declared the
acquisition of 283 sq. mtrs. of land of the petitioner,
more than the area notified under Section 11, is required
to be set aside on this ground alone.
20. It was argued that the change in the acquired area of the
land in question had occurred on account of the change
of plan by the GMRC about location of the Metro station.
The submission is that this was an important
circumstance to be brought to the notice of the
petitioner to grant him the opportunity of raising
objection, inasmuch as, shifting of Metro station after
the publication of the proposal under Section 11 by
acquiring more area than the notified under the
preliminary proposal for acquisition, is a malafide
exercise on the part of the GMRC. The petitioner has
invested huge amount in making development over the
land in question and is, thus, being deprived of his
valuable property right protected under Article 300A of
the Constitution of India, for the action of the Collector
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
and the GMRC, in collusion.
21. It was submitted that U-turn taken by GMRC to its
stand in the year 2021 while giving NOC on 25.05.2021
for development of the land in question, cannot be
approved of. Serious prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner by the manner in which the land acquisition
proceedings have been undertaken in complete denial of
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and hence, the
notification under Section 19 is required to be quashed.
22. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in
Kolkata Municipal Corpn. v. Bimal Kumar Shah,
(2024) 10 SCC 533, to submit that right to a
meaningful and effective prior notice of acquisition, is
the right of the property-bearer to communicate his
objections and concerns to the authority acquiring the
property. This right to be heard against the proposed
acquisition must be meaningful and not a sham. Section
15 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 and Section 5A of the Old Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 are the statutory embodiments of this right.
23. It was submitted that the Apex Court has reiterated
therein that the enquiry in which a land holder would
raise his objection is not a mere formality. It is
incumbent upon the authority who has heard and
considered the objection to take an informed decision
and communicate the same to the objector. Section 19
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 are
the statutory incorporations of this principle.
24. It was held by the Apex Court therein that :-
"The right to property: A net of intersecting
rights
27. There is yet another aspect of the matter.
Under our constitutional scheme, compliance with
a fair procedure of law before depriving any person
of his immovable property is well entrenched. We
are examining this issue in the context of Section
352 of the Act which is bereft of any procedure
whatsoever before compulsorily acquiring private
property. Again, assuming that Section 363 of the
Act provides for compensation, compulsory
acquisition will still be unconstitutional if proper
procedure is not established or followed before
depriving a person of their right to property. We
find it compelling to clarify that a rather undue
emphasis is laid on provisions of compensation to
justify the power of compulsory acquisition, as if
compensation by itself is the complete procedure
for a valid acquisition.
28. While it is true that after the 44th
Constitutional Amendment [the Constitution (44th
Amendment) Act, 1978], the right to property
drifted from Part III to Part XII of the Constitution,
there continues to be a potent safety net against
arbitrary acquisitions, hasty decision-making and
unfair redressal mechanisms. Despite its spatial
placement, Article 300-A [ 300-A of the
Constitution:"300-A. Persons not to be deprived of
property save by authority of law.--No person shall
be deprived of his property save by authority of
law."] which declares that "no person shall be
deprived of his property save by authority of law"
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
has been characterised both as a constitutional and
also a human right [Lachhman Dass v. Jagat Ram,
(2007) 10 SCC 448; Vidya Devi v. State of H.P.,
(2020) 2 SCC 569 : (2020) 1 SCC (Civ) 799] . To
assume that constitutional protection gets
constricted to the mandate of a fair compensation
would be a disingenuous reading of the text and,
shall we say, offensive to the egalitarian spirit of
the Constitution.
29. The constitutional discourse on compulsory
acquisitions, has hitherto, rooted itself within the
"power of eminent domain". Even within that
articulation, the twin conditions of the acquisition
being for a public purpose and subjecting the
divestiture to the payment of compensation in lieu
of acquisition were mandated [ State of
Bihar v. Kameshwar Singh, (1952) 1 SCC 528] .
Although not explicitly contained in Article 300-A,
these twin requirements have been read in and
inferred as necessary conditions for compulsory
deprivation to afford protection to the individuals
who are being divested of property [Hindustan
Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai,
(2005) 7 SCC 627; K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State
of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ)
414] . A post-colonial reading of the Constitution
cannot limit itself to these components alone. The
binary reading of the constitutional right to
property must give way to more meaningful
renditions, where the larger right to property is
seen as comprising intersecting sub-rights, each
with a distinct character but interconnected to
constitute the whole. These sub-rights weave
themselves into each other, and as a consequence,
State action or the legislation that results in the
deprivation of private property must be measured
against this constitutional net as a whole, and not
just one or many of its strands.
30. What then are these sub-rights or strands of
this swadeshi constitutional fabric constituting the
right to property? Seven such sub-rights can be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
identified, albeit non-exhaustive. These are:
(i) The duty of the State to inform the person
that it intends to acquire his property -- the
right to notice,
(ii) The duty of the State to hear objections to
the acquisition -- the right to be heard,
(iii) The duty of the State to inform the person
of its decision to acquire -- the right to a
reasoned decision,
(vi) The duty of the State to demonstrate that
the acquisition is for public purpose -- the
duty to acquire only for public purpose,
(v) The duty of the State to restitute and
rehabilitate -- the right of restitution or fair
compensation,
(vi) The duty of the State to conduct the
process of acquisition efficiently and within
prescribed timelines of the proceedings -- the
right to an efficient and expeditious process,
and
(vii) The final conclusion of the proceedings
leading to vesting -- the right of conclusion.
31. These seven rights are foundational
components of a law that is tune with Article 300-A,
and the absence of one of these or some of them
would render the law susceptible to challenge. The
judgment of this Court in K.T. Plantation [K.T.
Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9
SCC 1 : (2011) 4 SCC (Civ) 414] declares that the
law envisaged under Article 300-A must be in line
with the overarching principles of rule of law, and
must be just, fair, and reasonable. It is, of course,
precedentially sound to describe some of these sub-
rights as "procedural", a nomenclature that often
tends to undermine the inherent worth of these
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
safeguards. These seven sub-rights may be
procedures, but they do constitute the real content
of the right to property under Article 300-A, non-
compliance of these will amount to violation of the
right, being without the authority of law.
32. These sub-rights of procedure have been
synchronously incorporated in laws concerning
compulsory acquisition and are also recognised by
our constitutional courts while reviewing
administrative actions for compulsory acquisition of
private property. The following will demonstrate
how these seven principles have seamlessly become
an integral part of our Union and State statutes
concerning acquisition and also the constitutional
and administrative law culture that our courts have
evolved from time to time."
25. The contention is that the principles laid down by the
Apex Court of the sub-rights as a procedure
incorporated in law concerning compulsory acquisition is
to be kept in mind by the constitutional courts while
reviewing administrative actions for compulsory
acquisition of private property. It is held by the Apex
Court that a prior notice informing the bearer of the
right that the State intends to deprive them of the right
to property is a right in itself, as a linear extension of the
right to know embedded in Article 19(1)(a). The
Constitution does not contemplate acquisition by
ambush. The notice to acquire must be clear, cogent
and meaningful.
26. As against the stand of the petitioner, response by way
of the affidavits of the State Government and the officer
of the GMRC have been brought on record. The original
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
records pertaining to the acquisition have been brought
before the Court pursuant to the order dated 08.10.2024
and has been perused.
27. In the parawise reply dated 21.10.2024 to the contents
of the Writ petition filed on behalf of the State
respondents, it was placed before us that the objections
raised by the petitioner dated 06.06.2023 were against
the notification under Section 10A dated 16.05.2023.
The said objections were forwarded to the Special land
acquisition officer through the Revenue Department and
answer to the same was given on 07.10.2023 by the
Land acquisition officer, Branch-4, Surat stating therein
that the road alignment is to be carried by GMRC. The
GMRC also replied to the petitioner's objection dated
06.06.2023 on 10.07.2023.
28. Section 11(1) notification came to be issued on
12.07.2023, whereafter notice in Form 8 dated
25.08.2023 was issued to the petitioner inviting
objections within a period of sixty days as envisaged
under Section 15 of the Act' 2013. The petitioner did
not raise any objection within the stipulated period.
Instead, a representation dated 03.10.2023 was made to
the Collector and the Secretary, Revenue Department,
which was received in the office of the Special land
acquisition officer on 17.11.2023 to which a reply was
given on 07.12.2023. In the meantime, the land
acquisition proceedings were culminated with the award
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
declared on 10.11.2023. The copies of the
representation dated 03.10.2023 and the reply given by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 07.10.2023
are appended as Annexure 'R2' colly.
29. It was, thus, contended in the affidavit that the
petitioner was aware of the proceedings under Section
11 that the acquisition had commenced. Further, the
surveyor of the District Inspector of Land Records
(DILR), Surat had carried out measurement of the land
in question during which the petitioner was personally
present and a panch rojkam was drawn. The petitioner
had signed the panch rojkam and the surveyor of DILR,
Surat also explained the petitioner about the
demarcation, which had taken place on the land of the
petitioner. It was open for the petitioner to make
objection within the stipulated period of sixty days,
instead, he chose to file a representation on 03.10.2023.
The copy of the panch rojkam dated 19.08.2023,
forwarded by the DILR to the Land Acquisition Officer,
Branch-4, Surat dated 31.08.2023 appended as
Annexure 'R3' at page '421' of the paper book has been
placed before us.
30. It is further contended that thereafter, notices under
Sections 21(1) and 21(2) came to be served upon the
petitioner before the declaration of the award on
10.11.2023. It is the case of the Land acquisition officer
that hearings were scheduled on 18.10.2023 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
23.10.2023 in light of the notice under Section 21 of the
Act' 2013 and the partners of the petitioner were heard
with respect to the acquisition of 283 sq. mtrs. of the
land in question as per the declaration in the notification
under Section 19 of the Act' 2013. The copies of the
notices dated 07.10.2023 and 18.10.2023 under Sections
21(1) and 21(2) as also the representations dated
18.10.2023 and 23.10.2023 are appended as Annexure
'R4' Colly. It is further contended in the affidavit of the
Special land acquisition officer that in fact during the
hearing on 23.10.2023, the partners of the petitioner
had consented for the acquisition of the entire parcel of
land and placed their desire to be compensated for the
entire piece of land as per the market price.
31. However, the stand of the GMRC was brought to the
knowledge of the petitioner which was later informed by
the GMRC in their communication dated 10.07.2023.
Lastly, it was contended that after the declaration of the
award on 10.11.2023, on 22.11.2023, the possession of
the land in question was taken by the competent
authority in presence of the petitioner, however, the
petitioner had refused to sign the panchnama, which is
appended as Annexure 'R5' to the said affidavit.
32. The submission of the learned Assistant Government
Pleader appearing for the State respondents is, thus,
that the land acquisition proceedings were brought to its
logical conclusion on 10.11.2023 when the draft award
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
was published and further, on 22.11.2023, when the
possession of the land in question had been taken by
drawing a panchnama after declaration of the award.
The present petition has been filed on 03.11.2023 and
was got registered on 23.11.2023 when the only
challenge made was to the notifications under Section
10A and 11(1) dated 16.05.2023 and 12.07.2023;
respectively, as also the notices dated 07.10.2023 and
18.10.2023 under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Act'
2013. The submission is that the Writ petition has been
filed much after the declaration of the notification under
Section 19(1) was issued on 06.10.2023 and the
petitioner has not come with clean hands as there is no
disclosure in the Writ petition about the notices issued in
Form 8 dated 25.08.2023 after issuance of the
preliminary notification dated 12.07.2023. The
contention is that the petitioner has suppressed the
material fact of issuance of notice in Form 8 dated
25.08.2023 inviting his objection under Section 15 of the
Act' 2013 and the fact that he has not filed any
objection. The learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for the State respondents, thus, would submit
that the Writ petition is required to be dismissed
outrightly for the material suppression on the part of the
petitioner.
33. In the rejoinder filed on 08.12.2024 to the affidavit dated
22.10.2024 filed by the Special land acquisition officer,
there is no categorical denial to the averment in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
paragraph '9' about the notice in Form 8 dated
25.08.2023 issued to the petitioner inviting objections
within a period of sixty days as envisaged under Section
15 of the Act' 2013 and that the petitioner did not raise
any objection within the stipulated period. It is sought
to be reiterated with the bald denial in the opening line,
in paragraph '8' of the rejoinder affidavit that the
petitioner raised objection on 06.06.2023, which was not
decided by the Collector but was responded and
answered by the GMRC only vide reply dated
10.07.2023. Reference has been made to the reply
dated 07.10.2023 by the Land acquisition officer to the
representation dated 06.06.2023, which was admittedly
prior to Section 11(1) notification to state that no
decision was ever taken by the Land acquisition officer
on the representation made by the petitioner. It is
further stated in the rejoinder that the respondent
authorities have acted in malafide manner without any
authority of law.
34. In another paragraph no. 11 of the rejoinder, the
contents of paragraph no. 9 are strongly denied and it is
submitted that the documents, viz. Form 8 dated
25.08.2023 is brought on record for the first time by way
of the affidavit dated 21.10.2024. It is further stated
that the said document is not forming part of the record,
which has been filed before this Court pursuant to the
direction dated 15.12.2023. It is further stated in
paragraph '12' of the rejoinder that the petitioner raised
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
objection before the Collector on 03.10.2023, which is
categorically within sixty days of the issuance of the
notice dated 25.08.2023. The Collector, who is the
statutory authority to decide the
representation/objection under Section 15 of the Act'
2013 has not replied to the petitioner till date.
35. It is submitted that the alleged reply given by the Land
acquisition officer dated 07.12.2023 is only a forwarding
letter whereby the objection is forwarded to the
Director, Surat Metro Rail Corporation for further
consideration. The contentions of paragraph 10 of the
counter affidavit dated 21.10.2024 has further been
denied by asserting that no demarcation of the subject
land was made when the alleged rojkam was carried out
and further the said rojkam is not signed by any of the
authorities, except GMRC. The rojkam is dated
19.08.2023, whereas the notice issued to the petitioner
is dated 25.08.2023 and, as such, it is not open for the
respondents to argue that the petitioner did not raise
any objection within the period of sixty days. The
contention, thus, is that the possession of the land in
question has been taken by the respondents on paper
without conducting the whole acquisition proceedings
strictly in accordance with law.
36. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.3
GMRC dated 28.03.2024, it is categorically stated that
the decision for implementation of Surat Metro Rail
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Project was taken at the High power committee meeting
held on 13.01.2016 wherein in-principle approval for
implementation of the project was accorded. A Detailed
Project Report (DPR) for implementation of the project
in Surat came to be prepared by the Central Government
and Delhi Metro Rail Corporation. Sanction order was
passed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,
Government of India, entrusting the respondent no.3 to
implement the Surat Metro Rail project having a total
length of 40.35 kms. in two corridors, namely, Sartyhana
to Dream City (21.61 kms.) and Bhesan to Saroli (18.74
kms.).
37. On 26.08.2017, the Ministry of Housing and Urban
Affairs, Government of India released the Metro Rail
Policy, 2017 and it was advised that for the upcoming
metro projects, the provisions of the said policy be
incorporated in the DPR. The final DPR was submitted
to the Corporation(GMRC) on 04.06.2018. The issue
involved in the Writ petition is the location of the Entry-
exit structure of Ugat Varigruh Metro Station. The
contention is that the said structure in the final DPR was
to be located on Final Plot No. 136/p of the Town
Planning Scheme No. 42 (Jahangirabad).
38. However, on 12.09.2018, the Government of Gujarat
approved the DPR and further, it was approved by the
Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Government of
India on 09.03.2019 and the sanction order came to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
passed by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs,
Government of India. Purportedly under the belief that
the subject land was not required for the metro project,
the petitioner submitted an application seeking
development permission for developing the subject land
and No Objection Certificate was granted as per the
prevailing alignment drawing by the GMRC.
39. On 03.06.2021, the Corporation appointed the Detailed
design consultant for the Surat Metro Rail Project and
the work for detailed designing of the Surat Metro Rail
Project was then initiated with the detailed planning and
designing of the route, alignment, stations, etc. In the
joint meetings held on 7 th and 8th of December, 2021
between the GMRC, Detailed design consultant,
architects, construction department and the site team,
certain suggestions and comments were given to be
incorporated in the final design and relevant amongst
them is with regard to Ugat Varigruh Station. The
Detailed design consultant in its detailed detailed design
of the Surat Metro Rail Project has changed the position
of Ugat Varigruh Station from a curve to a straight form
and the position of the Entry-exit structure was, thus,
changed from Final plot no. 136/p to the subject land,
viz. Final plot No. 134 belonging to the petitioner. It is
categorically stated in the affidavit of the respondent
no.3 that :-
"3.14 The said change was undertaken for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
following reasons:
(i) The finalized station and the Entry - Exit
location were changed due to technical
requirement.
(ii) The Ugat Varigruh Station was located on
a curved alignment in the DPR, which was
technically wrong for a central pier to support
a elevated station. The said alignment came
to be modified and the station was shifted to a
straight form This optimization satisfied the
design requirement and the size of the
structural members for the central pier, which
are to support the elevated station. In other
words, the structural member failure was
rectified.
(iii) The Ugat Varigruh Station design was
optimized from double unpaid area/vestibule
to single unpaid concourse / vestibule, as was
being done for rest of the stations of Surat
Metro Rail Project, since the same reduces
the maintenance load / requirements.
(iv) As per the DPR, the Entry-Exit structure
was located at Final Plot No.136/p requiring
an area of 594.1 square meters of private
land. However, on account of change in form
of the station and creation of a single
vestibule, it was technically more feasible to
have the Entry-Exit structure on the subject
land, in place of Final Plot No.136/p.
(v) The change of the Entry-Exit structure to
the subject land was also recommended as the
same would require land admeasuring only
438 square meters.
(vi) Lastly, the Final Plot No.136/p had four
buildings / structures and several persons,
which would involve rehabilitation of the
structures and affected persons, whereas, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
subject land was completely vacant and
under-developed and therefore, the same
would also result in saving of costs.
3.15 It is stated that the aforesaid changes and
finalization of the design of the Stations, as well as
the Entry-Exit structure was undertaken after
considering all technical aspects and design
parameters and being proof checked by the
Respondent Corporation, expert design consultants
and all other stakeholders and subsequent to
carrying out a joint land measurement. Herein
annexed and marked as Annexure-R7 (colly.), is the
copy of the email dated 9th December, 2021,
whereunder the minutes of the meeting was
submitted by the Respondent Corporation to the
DDC, letter dated 20th December, 2021, whereby
the DDC submitted the revised drawings and
design changes, as well as, the compliance sheet of
the above mentioned minutes of the meeting.
Herein annexed and marked as Annexure-R8
(colly.), are the photographs evidencing the above
mentioned reasons for change in the design of the
station and Entry-Exit structure."
40. It is, thus, demonstrated by the respondent Corporation
as to how the alignment of the metro rail station was
shifted from Final Plot No. 136/p to Final Plot No. 134.
It is further stated in the affidavit of the respondent no.2
that the said changes carried out by the Detailed design
consultant came to be approved by the Corporation
(GMRC) on 30.03.2022 after detailed discussions and
deliberations. Initially, the land requirement was 185.76
sq. mtrs. for the Entry-exit structure and the proposal
dated 02.12.2022 was accordingly sent by the
Corporation to the Collector, Surat for acquisition of the
lands covered by the proposal including the subject land
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
of the petitioner.
41. However, on 14.12.2022, the Detailed design consultant
submitted the revised plan for Entry-exit structures and,
thereafter, updated the land requirement submitted by
the consultant vide email dated 17.12.2022, requiring
an area of 283 sq. mtrs. of the subject land instead of
185.76 sq.mtrs.. The said requirement was submitted
upon undertaking the site inspection when it came to the
attention of the consultant that the additional area would
be required for staircase for Entry-exit structure. The
copies of the communications dated 14.12.2022 and
email dated 17.12.2022 of the detailed design consultant
are appended as Annexure-R11 colly. to the affidavit of
the respondent no.3.
42. It is further contended that the revised designs and land
requirements were considered by the Corporation
(GMRC) and it was approved on 22.12.2022. Vide letter
dated 20.02.2023, the GMRC submitted the land
requirement for approval of the Town Development
Officer, Surat, which came to be approved vide letter
dated 19.04.2023. The notifications under Sections 10A,
11(1) and Section 19 were issued thereafter. It is
further contended that on 25.07.2023, the land
acquisition officer called upon the DILR to undertake the
joint measurement survey of the land proposed to be
acquired. Pursuant thereto, the demarcation was
carried out on the subject land admeasuring 283 sq.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
mtrs. in the presence of the petitioner and the
respondent Corporation.
43. It was further submitted by the learned advocate
appearing for the respondent no.3 that after the
petitioner made a representation on 05.08.2023 to the
respondent Corporation, drawing measurement survey
and the demarcation was carried out on the required
land admeasuring 283 sq. mtrs. The panchnama
appended with the affidavit of the respondent no.2
contains the signature of the petitioner. The attention of
the Court is invited to page '444' of the paper book,
which is notice in Form 8, Rule 13(1) of the Rules of
Gujarat under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013,
viz. the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
(Gujarat) Rules 2017. It is, thus, submitted that the
notification under Section 19(1) issued on 06.10.2023 for
an area of 283 sq. mtrs. was after conducting a joint
measurement survey by the office of the DILR in
presence of the petitioner. It is, thus, categorically
submitted by the GMRC that the DPR was a preliminary
report and for complete planning and execution of the
project after the designs, route, alignment, position of
the structure, etc. is finalised by the Expert design
consultant in the year 2021-2022.
44. The entire process of acquisition was conducted with the
proposal of the GMRC. It is contended that the GMRC
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
took the decision on the opinion of the technical experts
in their respective fields who submitted their opinion
after detailed studies and deliberations concluding that
the change of Entry-exit structure from final plot no.
136/p to the subject land of the petitioner, viz. Final Plot
No. 134 is both technically and economically feasible
and in the interest of the metro project at large, which is
executed in public interest and would be cost saving to
the public exchequer.
45. To this submission made on behalf of the Corporation in
the affidavit filed on 28.03.2024, the averments in the
Writ petition are reiterated with the assertion that the
entire exercise of shifting to the land of the petitioner is
without any authority of law. A dispute has been raised
with regard to the assertions in the affidavit of
respondent no.3 about the measurement/survey of the
land having been undertaken on 25.07.2023. There is,
however, no dispute with regard to the measurement of
the land undertaken on 19.08.2023 by the DILR surveyor
in the presence of the petitioner wherein the area
required for the subject project is mentioned as 283.00
sq. mtrs.
46. Considering the explanation given by the Corporation in
its affidavit-in-reply, it is difficult for us to accept the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the change in the plan for entry and exit of Metro project
from Final Plot No. 136/p to Final Plot No. 134 was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
accentuated by any malafides on the part of the
Corporation or is a result of an illegal exercise of power.
It is difficult for us to take any exception to the decision
of the technical experts which was notified in the
proposal for acquisition submitted by the GMRC after
due deliberations and changes in the DPR by the
Detailed design consultant. There is no dispute about
the fact that the land in question was subject matter of
acquisition notified by the notifications under Section
10A dated 16.05.2023 and Section 11 dated 12.07.2023.
In the initial proposal submitted by the GMRC, an area
of 185.76 sq. mtrs. was required for acquisition and no
dispute can be raised to the same in light of the
response of the Corporation. The objection submitted by
the petitioner on 06.06.2023 to the notification under
Section 10A dated 16.05.2023 of the Act' 2013 had been
responded by the Corporation in its reply dated
10.07.2023. No malafide or impunity can be attached to
the response of the Corporation in its communication
dated 10.07.2023, which reads as under :-
"Entry/Exit cannot be shifted be FP.134 to another
location. Location of Entry Exit is finalized based on
the techno- economic evaluation during
construction within the Right of way of Metro Rail
Alignment. The Project was sanctioned on 13-09-
2015. After the sanction of the Project all
building/construction permission up to 20m from
the center line are Subject to No objection
certification (NOC) from GMRC. NOC not found
attached with your documents application. You are
requested to attach the same. If NOC not obtained
you are requested to apply for NOC before carrying
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
out any construction activity."
47. The acquisition notification was, thus, in line of the
proposal submitted by the Corporation.
48. The only question remains is of increase in the area of
the land in question from 185.76 sq. mtrs. to 283 sq.
mtrs. in the notification under Section 19(1) published
on 06.10.2023. The reasons for increase in the area
after the issuance of the proposal notification with the
joint measurement of the land in question undertaken on
19.08.2023 have been given by the GMRC and the
Special Acquisition Officer. There is no objection of the
petitioner to the joint measurement report dated
19.08.2023 except that it was not signed by the officers
of the Corporation. There is no dispute about the fact
that the petitioner was present in the joint measurement
conducted on 19.08.2023 by the competent authority,
viz. surveyor of the DILR in light of the proposal
submitted by the Corporation. No exception can be
taken to the stand of the Corporation that the additional
area is required for the staircase of the entry and exit
point of the Metro station.
49. We may note that the notifications issued on 16.05.2023
under Section 10A and 12.07.2023 under Section 11
were proposals for acquisition and the change in the said
proposal was duly notified by the acquisition notification
dated 06.10.2023 under Section 19(1). The final area of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
the subject land notified in the declaration notification
under Section 19(1) is 283 sq. mtrs., which may be an
area increased from the initial proposal of the subject
land, but it was the result of the report of the technical
expert as per the requirement of the project, which was
duly communicated to the petitioner in the joint
measurement survey conducted on 19.08.2023. It is not
possible for us to accept the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the notification under
Section 19(1) came to be issued on 06.10.2023 for an
area of 283 sq. mtrs., behind the back of the petitioner
or without the knowledge of the petitioner.
50. We may note that two contradictory submissions have
been made by the petitioner to challenge the acquisition
proceeding on the ground that sixty days' time to file
objection under Section 15 of the Act' 2013, which is a
valuable right of the land holder, has not been provided
to the petitioner. The first is that the notification under
Section 19 has been issued on 06.10.2023 within one
week from the last date of the publication of the
notification under Section 11 in the English daily
newspaper on 28.09.2023. The submission, thus, is that
the procedure prescribed under Section 11 read with
Section 15 has not been followed. On the other hand, it
is stated in the rejoinder affidavit that even if it is
assumed that the the notice in Form 8 under Rule 13(1)
dated 25.08.2023 has been issued to the petitioner, the
representation dated 03.10.2023 to the Collector, Surat
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
are required to be considered as objection under Section
15 of the Act' 2013 of the petitioner to the said notice
and, as such, they were required to be dealt with by
dealing with all points of objection after granting
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Both these
alternative submissions are not tenable for the reasons
stated in the following paragraphs.
51. With regard to the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that sixty days' time period for filing
objection under Section 15 is to be computed from the
last date of publication of Section 11 notification in the
English daily newspaper on 28.09.2023, we may simply
note that there is nothing in the scheme of the Act' 2013
either under Section 11 or Section 15, whereby we can
draw a conclusion that the legislature required a time
gap of sixty days from the last date of the publication of
Section 11 notification, between the notifications under
Section 11 and Section 19 of the Act' 2013. Under the
scheme of the Act' 2013, Sections 11, 12, 15 and 19,
relevant for our purposes are to be noted for the ready
reference :-
"11. Publication of preliminary notification
and power of officers thereupon.-(1) Whenever,
it appears to the appropriate Government that land
in any area is required or likely to be required for
any public purpose, a notification (hereinafter
referred to as preliminary notification) to that
effect along with details of the land to be acquired
in rural and urban areas shall be published in the
following manner, namely:--
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
(a) in the Official Gazette;
(b) in two daily newspapers circulating in the
locality of such area of which one shall be in the
regional language;
(c) in the local language in the Panchayat,
Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case
may be and in the offices of the District Collector,
the Sub-divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil;
(d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate
Government;
(e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(2) Immediately after issuance of the notification
under sub-section (1), the concerned Gram Sabha
or Sabhas at the village level, municipalities in case
of municipal areas and the Autonomous Councils in
case of the areas referred to in the Sixth Schedule
to the Constitution, shall be informed of the
contents of the notification issued under the said
sub-section in all cases of land acquisition at a
meeting called especially for this purpose.
(3) The notification issued under sub-section (1)
shall also contain a statement on the nature of the
public purpose involved, reasons necessitating the
displacement of affected persons, summary of the
Social Impact Assessment Report and particulars of
the Administrator appointed for the purposes of
rehabilitation and resettlement under section 43.
(4) No person shall make any transaction or cause
any transaction of land specified in the preliminary
notification or create any encumbrances on such
land from the date of publication of such
notification till such time as the proceedings under
this Chapter are completed:
Provided that the Collector may, on the application
made by the owner of the land so notified, exempt
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
in special circumstances to be recorded in writing,
such owner from the operation of this subsection:
Provided further that any loss or injury suffered by
any person due to his wilful violation of this
provision shall not be made up by the Collector.
(5) After issuance of notice under sub-section (1),
the Collector shall, before the issue of a declaration
under section 19, undertake and complete the
exercise of updating of land records as prescribed
within a period of two months.
12. Preliminary survey of land and power of
officers to carry out survey.-For the purposes of
enabling the appropriate Government to determine
the extent of land to be acquired, it shall be lawful
for any officer, either generally or specially
authorised by such Government in this behalf, and
for his servants and workmen,--
(a) to enter upon and survey and take levels of any
land in such locality;
(b) to dig or bore into the sub-soil;
(c) to do all other acts necessary to ascertain
whether the land is adapted for such purpose;
(d) to set out the boundaries of the land proposed
to be taken and the intended line of the work (if
any) proposed to be made thereon; and
(e) to mark such levels, boundaries and line by
placing marks and cutting trenches and where
otherwise the survey cannot be completed and the
levels taken and the boundaries and line marked,
to cut down and clear away any part of any
standing crop, fence or jungle:
Provided that no act under clauses (a) to (e) in
respect of land shall be conducted in the absence
of the owner of the land or in the absence of any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
person authorised in writing by the owner:
Provided further that the acts specified under the
first proviso may be undertaken in the absence of
the owner, if the owner has been afforded a
reasonable opportunity to be present during the
survey, by giving a notice of at least sixty days
prior to such survey:
Provided also that no person shall enter into any
building or upon any enclosed court or garden
attached to a dwelling-house (unless with the
consent of the occupier thereof) without previously
giving such occupier at least seven days' notice in
writing of his intention to do so."
"15. Hearing of objections.-(1) Any person
interested in any land which has been notified
under sub-section (1) of section 11, as being
required or likely to be required for a public
purpose, may within sixty days from the date of the
publication of the preliminary notification, object
to--
(a) the area and suitability of land proposed to be
acquired;
(b) justification offered for public purpose;
(c) the findings of the Social Impact Assessment
report.
(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be
made to the Collector in writing, and the Collector
shall give the objector an opportunity of being
heard in person or by any person authorised by him
in this behalf or by an Advocate and shall, after
hearing all such objections and after making such
further inquiry, if any, as he thinks necessary,
either make a report in respect of the land which
has been notified under sub-section (1) of section
11, or make different reports in respect of different
parcels of such land, to the appropriate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
Government, containing his recommendations on
the objections, together with the record of the
proceedings held by him along with a separate
report giving therein the approximate cost of land
acquisition, particulars as to the number of
affected families likely to be resettled, for the
decision of that Government.
(3) The decision of the appropriate Government on
the objections made under sub-section (2) shall be
final."
"19. Publication of declaration and summary
of Rehabilitation and Resettlement.-(1) When
the appropriate Government is satisfied, after
considering the report, if any, made under sub-
section (2) of section 15, that any particular land is
needed for a public purpose, a declaration shall be
made to that effect, along with a declaration of an
area identified as the "resettlement area" for the
purposes of rehabilitation and resettlement of the
affected families, under the hand and seal of a
Secretary to such Government or of any other
officer duly authorised to certify its orders and
different declarations may be made from time to
time in respect of different parcels of any land
covered by the same preliminary notification
irrespective of whether one report or different
reports has or have been made (wherever
required).
(2) The Collector shall publish a summary of the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme along
with declaration referred to in sub-section (1):
Provided that no declaration under this sub-section
shall be made unless the summary of the
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme is
published along with such declaration:
Provided further that no declaration under this sub-
section shall be made unless the Requiring Body
deposits an amount, in full or part, as may be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
prescribed by the appropriate Government toward
the cost of acquisition of the land:
Provided also that the Requiring Body shall deposit
the amount promptly so as to enable the
appropriate Government to publish the declaration
within a period of twelve months from the date of
the publication of preliminary notification under
section 11.
(3) In projects where land is acquired in stages, the
application for acquisition itself can specify
different stages for the rehabilitation and
resettlement, and all declarations shall be made
according to the stages so specified.
(4) Every declaration referred to in sub-section (1)
shall be published in the following manner,
namely :--
(a) in the Official Gazette;
(b) in two daily newspapers being circulated in the
locality, of such area of which one shall be in the
regional language;
(c) in the local language in the Panchayat,
Municipality or Municipal Corporation, as the case
may be, and in the offices of the District Collector,
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the Tehsil;
(d) uploaded on the website of the appropriate
Government;
(e) in the affected areas, in such manner as may be
prescribed.
(5) Every declaration referred to in sub-section (1)
shall indicate,--
(a) the district or other territorial division in which
the land is situated;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
(b) the purpose for which it is needed, its
approximate area; and
(c) where a plan shall have been made for the land,
the place at which such plan may be inspected
without any cost.
(6) The declaration referred to in sub-section (1)
shall be conclusive evidence that the land is
required for a public purpose and, after making
such declaration, the appropriate Government may
acquire the land in such manner as specified under
this Act.
(7) Where no declaration is made under sub-section
(1) within twelve months from the date of
preliminary notification, then such notification shall
be deemed to have been rescinded:
Provided that in computing the period referred to
in this sub-section, any period or periods during
which the proceedings for the acquisition of the
land were held up on account of any stay or
injunction by the order of any Court shall be
excluded:
Provided further that the appropriate Government
shall have the power to extend the period of twelve
months, if in its opinion circumstances exist
justifying the same:
Provided also that any such decision to extend the
period shall be recorded in writing and the same
shall be notified and be uploaded on the website of
the authority concerned."
52. Section 11, sub-section (1) provides for different modes
of circulation of the notification published in the Official
gazette notifying the intention of the appropriate
Government for acquisition of the land in an area. The
publications in the manner prescribed in clauses (a) to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
(e) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 are mandatory, so
that the public at large is made aware of the fact that
the lands in the area are likely to be acquired for any
public purpose. Apart from publication in the official
gazette, publication in two daily newspapers, notice in
the local language in the office of the local bodies,
offices of the District Collector, Sub-divisional
Magistrate etc., uploading the notification on the
website of the Appropriate Government and publication
in the affected areas in the manner prescribed by the
State Government, is mandatory. The purpose is that
all should be made aware of the intention of the
appropriate Government to acquire certain piece of land
and the nature of public purpose involved therein.
53. Sub-section (3) of Section 11 categorically provides that
the notification under sub-section (1) shall contain a
statement on the nature of the public purpose involved,
reasons necessitated for displacement of the affected
persons, summary of Social Impact Assessment Report
and other particulars pertaining to rehabilitation and
resettlement under Section 43. Sub-section (4) of
Section 11 restrains any person from making any
transaction of land specified in the preliminary
notification or create any encumbrance on such land
from the date of publication of the notification under
Section 11, till such time as the proceedings under
Chapter IV of the notification and acquisition is
completed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
54. When we look to the provisions of Section 12, it enables
the appropriate Government to determine the extent of
the land to be acquired by carrying out survey of any
such locality, setting out the boundaries and mark such
levels and doing all necessary acts to ascertain whether
the land is adopted for such purposes. The proviso to
Section 12, however, states that no such act shall be
conducted in the absence of the owner of the land or any
authorised person of the owner.
55. Section 15 provides for an opportunity to any person
interested in any land proposed for acquisition to raise
his objection about the (i) area and suitability of the land
proposed to be acquired; (ii) justification offered for
public purpose; and (iii) the findings of the Social Impact
Assessment report. Sub-section (2) of Section 15
provides the manner in which the objections are to be
dealt with and report is prepared by the Collector for
decision of the Appropriate Government. Sub-section (3)
of Section 15 attaches finality to the decision of the
Appropriate Government on the objections made in sub-
section (2) of Section 15. The question of issuance of the
notification under Section 19 declaring that the
Appropriate Government is satisfied that a particular
land is needed for public purpose, would arise only after
the satisfaction is recorded by the Appropriate
Government considering the report made in sub-section
(2) of Section 15 and all other aspects of the objections,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
suitability/public purpose, rehabilitation and
resettlement of the affected families, if any.
56. It is, thus, evident that the land holders get one
opportunity to file their objection under Section 15
between two notifications for acquisition, viz. Section 11
indicating the intention of the Appropriate Government
and Section 19 where a declaration is made about
acquisition. The right to be heard has been recognised
in an umpteen number of decisions by the Apex Court
and Constitutional Courts as right to a meaningful and
effective prior notice of acquisition, right of land holders
to communicate his objections and concerns to the
authority acquiring the property.[Ref : Kolkata
Municipal Corpn. (supra)].
57. The Apex Court has also time and again stated that the
right to be heard against the proposed acquisition must
be meaningful and not sham. The enquiry in which the
land holder would raise his objection is not a mere
formality. Section 15 of the Act' 2013 and Section 5A of
the Old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 have recognised the
valuable rights of a land holder being an integral part of
the constitutional right of an individual to hold and enjoy
property under Article 300A. It is incumbent upon the
land acquisition authorities who have heard and
considered the objections to pass a reasoned order
taking an informed decision and communicate the same
to the objector/land holder.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
58. Under the scheme of the Act, the declaration of the
decision to acquire can be made only after the
conclusion of the procedure of objection and hearing and
decision of the Appropriate Government on the
objections made under Section 15 by the land holder.
There cannot be any relaxation or deviation from the
said statutory procedure because of the compulsory
nature of acquisition and the enactment being
expropriatory in nature.
59. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the question before us is as to whether the
petitioner has been denied opportunity to file objection
and hearing, which is a valuable right of the land holder
under Section 15.
60. As noted hereinbefore, it is demonstrated before us by
the respondents with the material brought on affidavit
and the original record of the acquisition placed before
us that a notice dated 25.08.2023 in Form 8 under Rule
13(1) of the Gujarat Rules had been issued to the
petitioner along with other tenure holders. The copy of
the notice is appended at page '444' of the paper-book
which shows the description of survey number, final plot
number, the total area and the proposed area for
acquisition of Final Plot no.134 belonging to the
petitioner. The said notice contains the name of the
petitioner being one of the tenure holders of the said
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
plot and it categorically provides that objections be
made within a period of sixty days. The date of personal
hearing for the objections indicated in the notice was
22.09.2023 at 12.30.
61. We may note that in the present petition filed on
03.11.2023, there is no disclosure of the notice dated
29.08.2023 in Form 8. There is no denial in the
rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner about the said
notice having been served upon him. No objection had
been filed by the petitioner pursuant to the said notice.
An adverse inference is to be drawn about the service of
notice for the simple reason that the petitioner has never
objected to the same nor has disclosed anything in the
writ petition. At the cost of repetition it may be noted
here that in the writ petition filed on 03.11.2023, the
petitioner had initially chosen not to challenge the
acquisition notification dated 06.10.2023 published
under Section 19 of the Act' 2013.
62. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner has not come with the
clean hands and complete facts of initiation of the
proceedings. Improvements have been made by way of
amendment, permitted by this Court, which are not
sufficient to sustain the challenge as there is no denial
about the notice under Section 15 duly issued to the
petitioner. No objection whatsoever has been taken by
the petitioner within the time prescribed in the said
notice. There is a complete silence about the date fixed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
for personal hearing. Once the petitioner did not
participate in the proceeding conducted by the
competent authority, he cannot be permitted to raise
grievance about the denial of right to file objection and
personal hearing, protected under Section 15 of the Act'
2013.
63. Lastly, as regards the representation dated 03.10.2023,
suffice it to note that a perusal of the said document at
page '130' of the paper book indicates that it was simply
a representation sent to the Deputy Secretary, Revenue
Department, Government of Gujarat and the Collector,
Surat wherein the petitioner has reiterated his previous
representations made to the Revenue department and
GMRC. It is stated therein that either the proceedings
for acquisition of the proposed area be dropped or the
entire land belonging to the petitioner in Final Plot No.
134 be acquired for providing compensation to the
petitioner. This representation cannot be said to be an
objection within the meaning of Section 15 of the Act'
2013. The contrary stand taken by the petitioner that
even the representation dated 03.10.2023 has not been
answered before publication of the notification under
Section 19 dated 06.10.2023 is, thus, unacceptable, to
attach any illegality much less irregularity to the process
of acquisition.
64. From the material on record and a perusal of the
original record of acquisition, we reach at an irresistible
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/20062/2023 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 02/07/2025
undefined
conclusion that no illegality in the entire acquisition
process could be demonstrated before us. The challenge
to the acquisition of the land in question, which is for a
public purpose of construction of the Metro station on all
grounds taken during the course of arguments, dealt
with hereinabove, is liable to be turned down.
65. The present petition stands dismissed being devoid of
merits. No order as to costs.
66. Civil Application, if any, would not survive and shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(PRANAV TRIVEDI,J)
BIJOY B. PILLAI
