Gujarat High Court
Dahyabhai Sankardas Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 18 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21072/2018 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 21072 of 2018
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3500 of 2019
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3390 of 2019
=============================================
DAHYABHAI SANKARDAS PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MRS NISHA M PARIKH(2397) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS HETAL PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR BY MANKAD(440) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 18/09/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Ms.Nisha M. Parikh, learned advocate for the
petitioners, Ms.Hetal Patel, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the State respondents and Mr.B.Y.Mankad,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
2. By means of these three petitions, the petitioners are
seeking reliefs which are three folds :
(i) To declare the proceedings of the lands in question
as having been lapsed in view of Section 24(2) of
the 2013 Act;
(ii) To re-grant the subject land to the petitioners at
the Jantri rate by holding the retention of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21072/2018 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
subject land by the respondent authorities as
illegal; and
(iii) To grant another piece of land in view of the
acquired land holding that the acquisition of the
subject land was illegal.
3. It is pointed out by Mr.B.Y.Mankad, learned advocate for
the respondent No.2, namely Sardar Sarovar Punarvasvat
Agency that in a similar set of facts with regard to the same
acquisition, the coordinate bench of this Court has passed the
following order in Special Civil Application No.21017 of
2018 :-
"Heard learned advocate Ms.Parikh for the
petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.
Divyangna Jhala for respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and
learned advocate Mr. B. Y. Mankad for respondent
No.2.
2. By invoking writ jurisdiction of this court, what is
prayed by the petitioner is to consider the application
given by the petitioner dated 19.8.2014 for re-grant
of the land. Alternatively, it is prayed to grant
another land.
3. By seeking amendment in the petition which was
granted on 10.10.2019, the petitioner tried to put up
the case that acquisition proceedings are required to
be treated as having lapsed as per section 24(2) of
the new Act the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013.
4. Noticing the basic facts, the land bearing Survey
No. 85 admeasuring 1 Hecter 53 Are and 78 sq.mtrs.
situated at village Sitapur, Taluka Mandal, District
Ahmedabad, was acquired pursuant to notification
under section 4 issued on 13.7.2001. It was under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The award was declared
on 23.9.2002 under section 11 of the old Act. It is the
statement made by petitioner himself on oath and it
is not disputed that on the basis of the award, the
amount of compensation was paid to the petitioner. It
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/21072/2018 ORDER DATED: 18/09/2025
undefined
is the case, however, sought to be erected that the
possession was not taken.
5. So far as the contention raised in respect of
Section 24 of the new Act of 2013, that the
proceedings have lapsed, the same falls flat in view of
the decision of the Supreme Court in Indore
Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Others,
[(2020) 8 SCC 129]. The Court has recorded
conclusive findings in paragraph Nos.366 to 366.9 of
which paragraph No. 366.3 is relevant to answer the
contention of the petitioner in respect of the
contention raised under Section 24(2) of the Act.
Thus, when the decision has admittedly been made,
there should be no lapsing even if we leave the
aspect of possession although it was asserted by
other side that the decision has been taken illegally.
The compensation has been paid which is the case of
the petitioner, therefore what is held in paragraph
No.366.6, on the last line, will squarely apply.
6. This Court considering the prayer for re-grant of
the land to the petitioner for which the petitioner had
made application dated 19.8.2014, it is well settled
that re-grant is not the right of the land owner. It is
never an enforceable right. In that view, relief prayed
for grant of land and for directing the authorities to
consider such request made in the application could
hardly be considered.
7. The petition stands meritless. It is dismissed.
Notice is discharged."
4. Taking note of the above, we dismiss the present
petitions in the same terms of the above-noted judgment and
order dated 24.03.2021 passed by this Court.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY, J)
GAURAV J THAKER
