Gujarat High Court
Lalitaben D/O Naginbhai Bhagabhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 5 May, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4177/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4177 of 2025
==================================================
LALITABEN D/O NAGINBHAI BHAGABHAI PATEL W/O VASANTBHAI
MANGABHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==================================================
Appearance:
MR SALIL M THAKORE(5821) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS. HETAL PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANAV TRIVEDI
Date : 05/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
[1] Heard Mr. Salil M. Thakore, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioners and perused the record.
[2] By means of the present petition, the petitioners seek to
challenge the communication dated 25.01.2021, appended at
page '569' of the writ petition, whereby the request of the
petitioners for release of the land in question, acquired for the
purposes of GIDC has been rejected. The present writ petition
has been presented on 06.02.2025 and was registered on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4177/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
28.03.2025 and none of the paragraphs of the writ petition, the
petitioners have explained the laches of approximately 4 years
in approaching this Court, after rejection of the representation
for release of the land in question under Section 48 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
[3] Further in various paragraphs of the writ petition, the
petitioners would submit that the subject land ought to have
been released by the State Government on the ground of parity
seeking benefit of the Government Resolution dated 31.08.2001,
pursuant to which certain lands, similarly situated, as alleged by
the petitioners were released.
[4] Taking note of the above submissions made by the
petitioners, suffice it to note the contents of the letter dated
25.01.2021 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue
Department, State of Gujarat pursuant to the decision taken by
the State Government to deny release of the land in question
under Section 48(1) of the Act. The categorical statement made
in the order is that the power to release the land in question
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4177/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
after delivery of the possessions to the GIDC would not remain
with the State Government. The land in question cannot be
released by virtue of Section 48 of the Act. We may also note
the provisions of Section 48 which read as under:-
"48. Completion of acquisition not compulsory, but
compensation to be awarded when not completed
(1) Except in the case provided for In section 36, the
government shall be at liberty to withdraw from the
acquisition of any land of which possession has not been
taken.
(2) Whenever the government withdraws from any such
acquisition, the Collector shall determine the amount of
compensation due for the damage suffered by the owner in
consequence of the notice or of any proceedings
thereunder, and shall pay such amount to other person
interested, together with all costs reasonably incurred by
him in the prosecution of the proceedings under this Act
relating to the said land.
(3) The provisions of Part III of this Act shall apply, so far
as may be, to the determination of the compensation
payable under this section.
[5] A bare reading of sub-section (1) of the Section 48 of the
Act indicates that the State Government is at liberty to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4177/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
withdraw from acquisition of any land of which possession has
not been taken and sub-section (2) provides the consequences.
As there is a clear stand of the State Government in the order of
rejection of application moved by the petitioners passed in the
year 2021 that the possession of the land in question has been
given to GIDC and the provisions of Section 48(1) of the Act
cannot be invoked to release the land in question, we do not find
it to be a fit case to entertain that too after a period of 4 years
based on a Government Resolution dated 31.08.2001, benefit of
which was never sought by the petitioners.
[6] Moreover, we may also recorded the decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.20919 of 2017, wherein it is held
by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the policy of the State
Government formulated vide Government Resolution dated
31.08.2001 permitting re-grant of the acquired land is in
violation of law. It was held therein that the High Court was
justified in holding that re-grant of land is not permissible. A
categorical direction has been issued that the policy of the State
for re-grant shall not be given effect to in future though it is left
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4177/2025 ORDER DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
open for the State to frame appropriate policy in accordance
with law for rehabilitation of the displaced persons who are
rendered landless on account of acquisition. A further
observation has been made that the disposal of property vested
in the State can only be consistent with the Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. In the judgment and order dated
05.09.2024 passed Special Civil Application No.4306 of 2024,
we have dealt with the same issue.
[7] Taking note of the above facts, the present petition is
liable to be dismissed, as misconceived and is dismissed
accordingly.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.)
(PRANAV TRIVEDI, J.)
DHARMENDRA KUMAR
