Gujarat High Court
Shri Prabodhbhai Champaklal Dave vs The Deputy Collector And Land ... on 4 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12360/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12360 of 2025
==========================================================
SHRI PRABODHBHAI CHAMPAKLAL DAVE
Versus
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIRAV C THAKKAR(2206) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 04/09/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
The present petition has been filed with innocuous prayers,
as under :-
"(b) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing
the respondent to inform where the amount of compensation
for the lands acquired being lands of Block No. 879 paiki in
village Samalpati, Patan are deposited and thereafter to see
to it that the same is paid to the petitioner with interest at
the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of same fell due till
realization.
(C) During pendency and final hearing of this petition, be
pleased to directing the concerned authorities of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12360/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
respondent to deposit the amount of compensation for the
lands acquired being lands of Block No. 879 paiki in village
Samalpati, Patan are deposited and thereafter to see to it
that the same is paid to the petitioner with interest at the
rate of 18% p.a. from the date of same fell due till
realization."
2. From the statement made in the writ petition, pertinent is to
note that as per own contention of the petitioner, the land-in-
question, which was acquired vide notifications published in the
year 1987-1988, were belonging to other persons as well, besides
the petitioner herein. As per the contention made in the writ
petition, the petitioner had challenged the acquisition proceedings
and the writ petition had been dismissed vide judgment and order
dated 10.12.1988. The Special Leave Petition filed by the
petitioner has also been dismissed by the Apex Court vide
judgment and order dated 09.03.1999. As per the statement made
in the writ petition, the award was declared on 30.05.1992 and the
petitioner filed a Reference under Section 18 on 14/15.04.1999,
which was registered as Land Reference Case No. 886 of 2000 and
was re-numbered as Land Reference Case no. 827 of 2006. The
Reference filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Civil
Court vide judgment and order dated 12.10.2012 on the ground of
limitation. In a vague assertion made in the writ petition, it is
stated that the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the
Reference court dated 12.10.2012, however, no details with that
regard has been provided with the writ petition.
3. After making the aforesaid statement of facts, vague
assertion is made in the writ petition that the petitioner is not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/12360/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/09/2025
undefined
aware of the fact as to whether the amount under the original
award dated 30.05.1992 is deposited and thus, the prayer has been
made to issue directions to the respondents to inform the petitioner
as to where the amount under the award dated 30.05.1992 has
been deposited. There is a reference of RTI application moved by
the petitioner in the writ petition, which did not yield to any
positive result.
4. Taking note of the above, pertinent is to record that as per
the own contention of the petitioner, the petitioner was aware of
the proceedings of the award and even challenged the award.
There is absolute silence in the writ petition about the notice of
the award issued by the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer,
if any, after making of the award. It is, thus, difficult to
comprehend that the petitioner is not aware as to whom he was
required to approach to seek the release of the compensation
determined under the original award dated 30.05.1992.
5. It is, thus, evident that the present petition is filed with
incorrect and incomplete facts and as such, no mandamus can be
issued. It is, however, open for the petitioner to approach the
competent authority for redressal of his grievance, if any.
6. With the above, the present petition stands dismissed.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
C.M. JOSHI
