Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Pirjada Rashidabibi Hisamuddin Saiyad vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 1 May, 2015

Author: Ks Jhaveri

Bench: Ks Jhaveri, A.G.Uraizee

         C/SCA/5288/2015                                JUDGMENT




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5288 of 2015
                                    TO
              SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5292 of 2015



FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI


and


HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

==========================================================

1     Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment ?

2     To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

3     Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
      the judgment ?

4     Whether this case involves a substantial question of
      law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
      India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
         PIRJADA RASHIDABIBI HISAMUDDIN SAIYAD....Petitioner(s)
                               Versus
                STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CP CHAMPANERI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAKESH PATEL [AGP In SCA No.5288/2015 to 5289/2015],
MR HARSHEEL SHUKLA [AGP In SCA No.5290/2015 to 5291/2015] And
MR BHARAT VYAS [AGP In SCA No.5292/2015] for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 3
==========================================================


                                 Page 1 of 5
          C/SCA/5288/2015                                         JUDGMENT




          CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

                                Date : 01/05/2015


                               ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)

1. The   matters   are   heard   finally   today.   All   these   petitions  involve  common questions on law and facts and hence, they are  decided by this common judgment. 

2. Challenge in these petitions is to the order dated 01.10.2014  passed by respondent­Special Land Acquisition Officer by which the  respondent­authority refused to make reference u/s.18 of the Land  Acquisition   Act.   For   the   sake   of   convenience,   S.C.A.   No.5288   of  2015 is taken as the lead matter. 

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioners herein are having  agricultural   fields   in   Dasada   Taluka,   which   is   proposed   to   be  acquired by the respondents for the Narmada Canal Project. It is  the   case   of   the   petitioners   that   respondent   no.2,   in   exercise   of  powers u/s.11 of the Act, passed an award on 10.10.2012, in the  absence of the petitioners, which has resulted into grave injustice to  them. It is the further case of the petitioners that the land sought to  be acquired is "jirayat land" and is very fertile. The petitioners have  been cultivating the land since last many years. 

Page 2 of 5

C/SCA/5288/2015 JUDGMENT

4. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that according to  Section 18 of the Act, any person interested, who has not accepted  the   award,   may   make   an   application   to   the   acquisition   officer  requiring the Collector to refer the matter for determination of the  Court. Such application has to be made within six weeks from the  date   of   the   award   of   Collector,   if   the   person   was   present   or  represented before the Collector at the time of passing the award;  and in other cases, within six weeks of receipt of Notice u/s.12(2)  or   within   six   months   from   the   date   of   award   of   the   Collector,  whichever period shall first expire. 

4.1 It   is   submitted   that   respondent   no.2   passed   the   award   on  10.10.2012, however, for the first time, Notice u/s.12(2) came to  be issued and served upon the petitioner only on 05.09.2013, after  expiry   of   six   months.   Such   delay   was   there   on   the   part   of  respondent   no.2­authority   itself,   who   has   acted   contrary   to   the  provisions of the act. It is submitted that after receiving Notice on  05.09.2013,   the   petitioner   immediately   filed   application   for  reference on 25.09.2013. However, the same came to be rejected. It  was,   therefore,   prayed   that   the   impugned   order   passed   by   the  respondent­authority deserves to be quashed and set aside. 

5. Learned  AGP  supported  the  impugned  order   passed  by   the  respondent­authority and submitted that since the petitioners were  aware about the acquisition proceedings, they ought to have taken  prompt   action   in   the   matter.   However,   the   petitioners   remained  inactive   for   a   long   period   of   time.   Learned   AGP,   therefore,  requested that the present petitions may not be entertained.

Page 3 of 5

C/SCA/5288/2015 JUDGMENT

6. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides.  The award  u/s.11 of the Act was passed on 10.10.2012 and admittedly, when  the said award was passed, the petitioners herein were not present.  They had no knowledge about the passing of such award. For the  first time, Notice u/s.12(2) of the Act came to be issued and served  upon   the   petitioners   only   on   05.09.2013,   ie.   after   expiry   of   six  months from the date of award. Such delay was there on the part of  respondent   no.2­authority   itself.   It   is   a   matter   of   fact   that   after  receipt   of   the  Notice   on  05.09.2013,  the  petitioners  immediately  filed   application   for   reference   on   25.09.2013,   which   came   to   be  rejected. 

  

7. Considering the facts of the case, it would be beneficial  to  refer to a decision of the Apex Court in Parsottambhai Maganbhai  Patel and others v. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2005  (3) GLH 377. In that case, the landowners were neither present nor  represented   when   award   was   made.   No   notice   u/s.12(2)   of   the  Land Acquisition Act was served upon them and they came to know  of the award only when compensation was paid. On the fact of the  case, the Apex Court held that application seeking reference was  within   limitation   as   it   has   to   be   computed   from   the   date   of  knowledge of declaration of award either actual or constructive. In  view   of   the   principle   laid   down   in   the   above   decision,   the  respondent­authority ought to have allowed the application seeking  reference since it was within limitation. 

8. For   the   foregoing   reasons,   the   petitions   are   allowed.   The  Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/5288/2015 JUDGMENT impugned   order   dated   01.10.2014   passed   by   the   respondent­ authority is quashed and set aside and the authority is directed to  refer the matters by way of reference to the competent Court. 

9. The   petitions   stand   disposed   of   accordingly.   Rule   is   made  absolute.

(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) Pravin Page 5 of 5