Gujarat High Court
Gunvantbhai Vastabhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 10 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 GUJ 162
Author: R.Subhash Reddy
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2010 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be No
allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the No
fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial No
question of law as to the interpretation
of the Constitution of India or any order
made thereunder ?
==========================================================
GUNVANTBHAI VASTABHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR RAMNANDAN SINGH(1126) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR DM DEVNANI, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR RD DAVE(264) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 10/10/2018
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
1. This petition is filed under Article 226 of Page 1 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT the Constitution of India, in which the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED to admit and allow this petition;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED to
issue writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction,
holding that acquisition proceeding
contemplated under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated on 25.03.2008 and further notification under Section 6 dated 23.06.2009 qua the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No.9/A/1-2 situated at village Jolva, Taluka Vagra, District Bharuch has elapsed as per the provisions under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act and more particularly, when Special Land Acquisition Officer has supplied information vide letter dated 4/6.1.2016 in response to the information sought for by the power of attorney of the petitioner under Right to Information Act that land of the petitioner has not been acquired therefore, there was no question of taking over the possession of the land in question.Page 2 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT
(BB) Your Lordships may be pleased to hold that the award dated 16.6.2011 is illegal, unlawful and is not tenable qua the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No.9/A/1-
2 situated at village Jolva, Taluka Vagra, District Bharuch and further may be pleased to direct the respondents not to take any further action pursuant to the award dated 16.6.2011 with respect to land of the petitioner.
(BB1) Alternatively, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authority/corporation to calculate the compensation as per the various provisions of Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 including that Section 24 of the Act, as none of the land owners has been paid compensation whose name appear in the award dated 16.6.2011 and also that possession has not been taken from any of the land owners whose name appear in the award dated 16.6.2011.
(BB2)Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities that in the event, the respondent authorities may Page 3 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT come to conclusion that compensation amount calculated under the Right to Fair Compensation And Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, is higher to the extent that it may not be viable to acquire the land in that circumstances the authorities may release the land from acquisition and till such decision is not taken the respondent authorities may not take possession of the land of the petitioner.
(C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the present Special Civil Application, YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY BE PLEASED to direct the respondent authorities not to take any further action with regard to the land of the petitioner bearing Survey No.9/A/1-2 situated in village Jolva, Taluka Vagra, District Bharuch;
(C-1) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent GIDC to
treat/consider the pieces of land bearing Survey Nos. 2, 3, 11, 356 and 296A, situated at village Jolwa as part and parcel of Gamtal of village Jolwa since residential premises were constructed long Page 4 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT back on those pieces land as in similar facts, PCPIR has considered certain pieces of land on which residential premises were existing in village Bhensali and other villages as Gamtal although those residential premises were not included in original Gamtal as per DLR map."
2. The factual matrix of the present case is as under:
2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that he is farmer and owner of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.9/A/1-2 situated at village Jolva, Taluka Vagra, District: Bharuch. The respondent No.1 issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) on 25.03.2008, by which, the lands of the petitioner as well as other farmers were sought to be acquired. Petitioner, therefore, made a representation on 18.09.2008 to the respondent No.2 contending that at least minimum 300 to 500 mtrs. of area which is the limit prescribed as exemption for acquisition of the land falling within the periphery of village should be left out from acquisition. Similar type of representation was made by the petitioner and others on 13.10.2008.
However, the respondent issued a declaration Page 5 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT under Section 6 of the Act on 23.03.2009. The petitioner, therefore, filed petition being Special Civil Application No.11584 of 2009. The said petition came to be disposed of by this Court by an order dated 19.10.2010 with certain directions. It is further stated that petitioner once again made representation dated 23.11.2010 to the respondents. However, no reply was received from the respondents. However, the petitioner came to know that respondent - GIDC passed a resolution and therefore petitioner once again approached this Court by filing petition being Special Civil Application No.8290 of 2011. The Division Bench of this Court disposed of the said petition on 01.07.2011. After disposal of the said petition, petitioner came to know that the Board of Directors of respondent GIDC has passed a resolution, without making spot inquiry as to whether the land of the petitioner falls within 300 mtrs. from the outer periphery of the residential area or not. Once again the petition being Special Civil Application No.16134 of 2012 came to be filed by the petitioner wherein the respondents GIDC filed reply. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 15.03.2012. Thereafter, as per the case of the petitioner, neither any award is passed nor possession is taken over of the land in question. Petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition. However, Page 6 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent - Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 16.06.2011. The petitioner came to know when the respondent authority filed the affidavit along with the said award and placed it on record. Petitioner, therefore, filed an amendment application which was granted and thereby petitioner has also challenged the award dated 16.06.2011 passed by the respondent - Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner has prayed that the award dated 16.06.2011 is back dated award and therefore the same be quashed and set aside. Petitioner has also prayed other reliefs as stated hereinabove.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. D.M.Devnani for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and learned advocate Mr. R.D.Dave for respondent No.5 - GIDC.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for the petitioner referred various orders passed by this Court in the petitions filed by the petitioner from time to time. It is pointed out from the order dated 19.10.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.11584 of 2009 wherein the contention of the learned advocate for the GIDC was recorded that some of Page 7 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT the lands covered under the Notification issued under Section 4 are falling within the periphery of residential areas of the villages and policy was in fact adopted by the GIDC, generally not to acquire the land falling under 300 mtrs. of the residential area. It was observed that the issue as far as petitioners were concerned, will be considered at the higher level and necessary decision could only be taken in a meeting of Board of Directors of the GIDC. This Court, therefore, disposed of the said petition with an observation that such decision be communicated to the petitioners and their advocates as early as practicable and in the meantime respondents will not proceed further with the process of acquisition. Liberty was reserved to the petitioner to challenge the decision of GIDC as and when such decision is communicated to them.
4.1. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh has referred an order dated 01.07.2011 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.8282 of 2011 and allied matters. The said petition was disposed of with a direction that the Board of Directors of GIDC to take a final decision in the matter of the petitioners and communicate the decision to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of the order. It is also observed that till the Page 8 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT decision is taken by the GIDC, the Collector, Bharuch shall not pronounce the award.
4.2. Thereafter, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh submitted that petitioner and similarly situated persons filed Special Civil Application No.16134 of 2011 and allied matters before this Court. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 15.03.2012. During the pendency of the said petition, it was pointed out by the respondent - GIDC that the Board of Directors has taken a decision on 16.02.2012 in its meeting and measurements of the land of the concerned petitioners were also taken and thereafter it was decided that the lands though acquired vide notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, the land bearing certain survey numbers which are falling within the limit of 300 mtrs. would be proposed to be released from the acquisition. The petition was disposed of with the clarification that making of representation by any of the petitioners or pendency of such representation shall not come in the way of conclusion of the acquisition proceedings and shall not be a ground for seeking adjournment in those proceedings.
4.3. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Singh has also pointed out the affidavit dated 11.11.2011 Page 9 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT filed by the officer of respondent - GIDC in Special Civil Application No.16134 of 2011. In the said affidavit, it is specifically stated by the concerned officer that "at the time of issuance of notice/first hearing, this Hon'ble Court has stayed the hands of Land Acquisition Officer not to declare the award qua the lands in question. The same is required to be vacated for the reason that the petitioners' land are not falling within the limits prescribed by the circular........."
5. Thus, from the aforesaid orders passed by this Court as well as the affidavit filed by the GIDC in the earlier proceedings, it is the case of the petitioners that no award could have been passed by the Land Acquisition Officer because stay was operating against GIDC and other respondents in passing the award till the communication of the decision of the Board of Directors to the petitioners or their advocate. No such communication of decision of Board of Directors was made at all to petitioner or to his advocate. Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to pass the award on the basis of statement made by learned advocate for GIDC that in the meantime the respondent will not proceed with the process of acquisition. It is contended that when the affidavit dated 11.11.2011 was Page 10 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT filed by the officer of GIDC, there was no reference with regard to passing of the award by the Land Acquisition Officer with regard to the land in question. On the contrary, it was specifically stated that because of the stay granted by this Court, the Land Acquisition officer is not in a position to declare the award and therefore the stay is required to be vacated. Thus, learned advocate Mr. Singh would contend that the impugned award dated 16.06.2011 which was produced along with the affidavit filed by the respondent Land Acquisition Officer in the present proceedings, is a back dated award.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh thereafter submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has filed one additional affidavit-in-reply on 16.08.2017 placing one page of outward register and one page of award register. The respondents have placed reliance upon those two documents and attempt is made to demonstrate that the award dated 16.06.2011 was passed on the same day and there is no manipulation in the record. However, the petitioner sought for certain information under the Right to Information Act from respondent GIDC. After receipt of the said information, it is revealed that award register has index of each award in the opening page itself and in that Page 11 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT index the award bearing No.2 of 2008 is not reflected at all and according to the respondents this is the award which is pertaining to the land of the petitioner. However, the said award is not shown in the index. Therefore, the award has been reflected by subsequent insertion in the award register. From the relevant pages annexed with the affidavit-in-reply, it is pointed out that the impugned award is shown at page 263 of the compilation. If the said page is seen, the same is not shown in the index and there was some entry which has been cancelled and thus the impugned award is entered at serial number 1. After referring to the relevant pages produced on record, it is submitted that the impugned award dated 16.06.2011 is noting but a back-dated award and therefore this Court may set aside the same.
7. Similarly, it is submitted that outward register maintained by the Land Acquisition Officer is also manipulated. In support of the said contention, once again learned advocate Mr. Singh has referred certain documents produced on record and thereafter submitted that the entry made on 17.06.2011 is manipulated one and in fact the respondents have not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the copy of the award was received by other authorities to whom such letters were dispatched as per the outward Page 12 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT register. Further, the impugned award was never communicated to the petitioner and the respondents have failed to produce any documents to show that the same has been communicated to the petitioner.
8. It is further contended that even in the impugned award, description of the land of the petitioner is shown as 9/1/A Paiki, whereas the correct description of the land of the petitioner is 9-A-1-2. The respondent authority has not rectified the said mistake and even if there is mistake it was required to be rectified within a period of six months from the date of passing of the award as per the provisions contained in Section 13(A) of the Land Acquisition Act. However, no such correction is made by the respondent authority.
9. Learned advocate for the petitioner would further submit that as per the information received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act pursuant to the application submitted by him that there was no document available on record to show that the respondent Land Acquisition Officer has issued any notice under Section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act to the petitioner, thus false statement is made by the respondent that notice under Section 12(2) Page 13 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT of the Act has been served by RPAD. However, the respondent authority has failed to produce any such evidence of service of notice. Thus, non- compliance of the provisions contained in Section 12(2) of the Act would also fatal and therefore the same be set aside.
10. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that even the amount of compensation for the impugned award dated 16.06.2011 was deposited by the respondent Land Acquisition Officer with the concerned authority on 21.12.2013. Even the false statement is made that though notice is served to the concerned farmers/owners of the land in question, they have not remained present for collecting the compensation. It is stated that copy of the notice under Section 12(2) or the copy of the award was not served to the petitioner and therefore there is no question of collecting the compensation from the Land Acquisition Officer. Thus, the said statement is incorrect.
11. Learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh thereafter submits that there is a discrimination with village Jolva regarding non-consideration of plot on which residential premises are constructed to be treated as Gamtal. In fact the respondent GIDC has considered the same for Page 14 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT village Bhensali. For the said village, Gamtal is shown differently and some of the plots where residential premises are constructed are also treated as Gamtal, whereas for village Jolva, though survey No.238, 11, 3, 2 and 296-A are having residential premises but the same are not considered as Gamtal. If the said residential premises are considered as Gamtal, then the land in question of the petitioner would fall within 300 mtrs. of Gamtal. Thus, on this ground also this Court may grant the relief in favour of the petitioner.
12. Learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh has referred the last additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 18.09.2018 and submitted that the petitioner had submitted an application for release of the land under Section 48 of the Act on 21.11.2012. He was inquiring about the same. Thereafter, one letter was given to him by the respondent GIDC stating that they are considering the case of the farmers and it was promised that case of the petitioner will also be considered. However, the said letter was misplaced by him. Later on, petitioner also found out internal communication between two departments of the respondent GIDC. The said communication dated 15.03.2012 is annexed with the said affidavit. From the said communication, it is submitted that Page 15 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT no award was passed till 29.12.2012 and therefore it is proved that the impugned award dated 16.06.2011 is back-dated award.
13. Learned advocate for the petitioner, therefore, urged that the reliefs prayed for in this petition be granted to the petitioner.
14. On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Devnani has submitted that order dated 01.07.2011 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.8282 of 2011 was served to the office of the Land Acquisition Officer on 11.11.2011. The said petition came to be disposed of at admission stage and the advance copy was served to the learned Assistant Government Pleader. Therefore, it could not be pointed out to this Court that the award is already passed on 16.06.2011 for the land in question. Even the mistake was committed by the concerned officer who has supplied information under the Right to Information Act to the petitioner that there is no acquisition proceedings with regard to the land in question. Therefore, the petitioner cannot rely upon the said communication. It is further submitted that District Inspector of Land Record (DILR) carried out the measurement of the land in question and lands of other farmers and thereafter submitted a Page 16 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT report wherein it is specifically stated that the land in question of the petitioner and land of some other farmers are beyond 300 mtrs from Gamtal and therefore in view of the same there is no question of releasing the land from acquisition as per the policy of the GIDC. Learned AGP thereafter submitted that impugned award dated 16.06.2011 was passed on the very same day and it cannot be said that the same is an afterthought and back-dated award. In fact entry No.601 dated 17.06.2011 has been made in the outward register of GIDC whereby the copy of the award has been served to various authorities as per the procedure and intimation. Even in the award register of the respondent authorities, necessary entry is effected indicating that award was passed on 16.06.2011. Thus, it is contended that the submission canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioner with regard to the back-dated award may not be accepted by this Court. Learned AGP has produced original award register and original outward register for the perusal of this Court.
15. Learned AGP thereafter submitted from the record that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was sent to the petitioner. However, the petitioner and other farmers did not remain present for collecting the amount of compensation Page 17 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT and therefore by an order dated 21.12.2013 compensation was deposited before the concerned authority. Thus, no error is committed by the respondent Land Acquisition Officer. It is, therefore, urged that the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief and therefore the petition be dismissed.
16. Learned advocate Mr. R.D.Dave appearing for the respondent - GIDC submitted that the petitioner was aware about passing of the award on 16.06.2011 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. In spite of that, he has suppressed the material fact while filing the petition. He has further submitted that the award clearly specifies service of notice under Section 9(3)(4) of the Act. Thereafter the hearing had taken place on 12.10.2009 and 15.10.2009. The award also refers giving an opportunity of hearing vide notices dated 05.11.2009 and 06.11.2009 to persons who did not attend hearing earlier. It is stated that the required procedure has been followed by the competent authority.
17. Learned advocate Mr. Dave further submits that there is no restriction for acquisition of land situated within or nearby village site. However, GIDC took a policy decision vide circular dated 24.05.2010 to exclude lands Page 18 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT situated within 300 meters from outer boundary of village site. Thereafter, further decision was taken by the respondent GIDC in the meeting held on 16.02.2012 taking into consideration the decision rendered by this Court in the aforesaid petition. It was thereafter decided to release area of lands bearing certain survey numbers falling within the limit of 300 meters of Gamtal. The said decision was communicated to the concerned officers of GIDC at Ankleshwar as well as to the Land Acquisition Officer by communication dated 23.03.2012. It is specifically contended by learned advocate Mr. Dave that the land owners of Survey Nos. 9/A/1/1, 9/A/1/2, 12, 131, 137 and 149/A-B have submitted their representations to release their lands. However, the decision was taken on 03.09.2015 whereby the concerned authority has decided village limits, distance of 300 mtrs. from the said village limit and village pond. Thereafter, DILR has measured the land as per the request of respondent GIDC and submitted the report wherein it is specifically stated that the land in question of the petitioner as well as of some other owners are beyond 300 mtrs. from Gamtal. Thus, there is no question of releasing the land from acquisition as per the policy of GIDC.
18. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has also referred Page 19 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT certain documents produced on record and contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 16.06.2011 itself and the said award is not a back-dated award as alleged by the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Dave has, therefore, urged that this petition be dismissed.
19. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material produced on record, it has emerged that respondent No.1 issued notification under Section 4 of the Act on 25.03.2008 by which the land of the petitioner as well as other farmers were sought to be acquired. The petitioner is the owner of the land bearing Revenue Survey No.9/A/1-2 situated at village Jolva, Taluka Vagra, District: Bharuch. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 23.03.2009. The case of the petitioner is that at least 300 meters of area which is the limit prescribed as exemption for acquisition of the land falling within the periphery of village should be left out from acquisition. The land of the petitioner is situated within 300 meters and therefore the respondent GIDC ought not to have taken the decision of acquiring the land of the petitioner. Petitioner, therefore, filed various petitions from time to time before this Court. The first petition filed by the petitioner and Page 20 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT other farmers came to be disposed of by this Court on 19.10.2010 with certain directions. Once again the petitioner filed petition being Special Civil Application No.8290 of 2011. The said petition came to be disposed of on 01.07.2011 at the stage of admission. It is the specific case of the respondent - Land Acquisition Officer that the copy of the said order came to be received on 11.11.2011. However, before the said date, the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an order on 16.06.2011. Thus, when the petition came to be disposed of at the admission stage by serving an advance copy to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the said aspect could not be pointed out to this Court.
20. It is also revealed from the record that DILR carried out the measurement of the land in question and land of other farmers and thereafter submitted a report, wherein, it is specifically stated that the land in question of the petitioner and land of some other farmers are beyond 300 mtrs. from Gamtal. Thus, when the land in question of the petitioner is beyond 300 mtrs. from Gamtal, the said land is not required to be released from acquisition as per the policy of the respondent - GIDC. The contention taken by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned award dated 16.06.2011 is back-dated Page 21 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT award, cannot be accepted in view of the documentary evidence produced on record.
21. Entry No.601 dated 17.06.2011 has been made in the outward register of GIDC whereby the copy of the award has been served to various authorities as per the procedure. The said outward register is placed on record on page 308 and 309 of the compilation. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the register which is produced on page 260 of the compilation. However, the same is not an outward register but the same is a register maintained by the GIDC for cases of different villages. Thus, it is clear from the record that contention of the petitioner about back-dated award is not required to be accepted. At the time of hearing of the petition, we have also perused original award register and original outward register, which were produced before us.
22. It is revealed that notice under Section 9(3) (4) of the Act was also served. However, the concerned farmers did not remain present for hearing on 12.10.2009 and 15.10.2009 and therefore further opportunity of hearing was provided vide notices dated 05.11.2009 and 06.11.2009 to persons who did not attend hearing earlier. Thus, from the record, it is clear that before passing the impugned award dated Page 22 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT 16.06.2011, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has followed the procedure prescribed under the Act.
23. The another contention taken by the petitioner that notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was not served to him, is also misconceived. In the award itself, it is specifically stated that notices under Section 12(2) of the Act were sent to the petitioner and other farmers. However, they did not remain present for collecting the amount of compensation and therefore the Special Land Acquisition Officer has deposited the amount of compensation before the concerned authority on 21.12.2013.
24. From the affidavit filed by the officer of respondent GIDC, it is revealed that in fact there is no restriction for acquisition of land situated within or nearby village site. However, a policy decision was taken by the GIDC by a circular dated 24.05.2010 to exclude lands situated within 300 meters from outer boundary of village site. Thereafter, because of the orders passed by this Court, once again a meeting was held on 16.02.2012 and a decision was taken in the said meeting, whereby it was decided to release the area of land bearing certain survey numbers falling within the limit of 300 meters of Page 23 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT Gamtal. The said decision was communicated to the concerned officer of GIDC at Ankleshwar as well as Land Acquisition Officer. The representations of the petitioner and other similarly situated farmers were not accepted for release of their lands from acquisition as the lands of the petitioner as well as some other farmers are beyond 300 meters from Gamtal. Thus, in view of the aforesaid factual aspects of the matter, the case of the petitioner for release of his land from acquisition, is rightly not entertained by the respondent GIDC.
25. The reliance placed by learned advocate for the petitioner on the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner on 18.09.2018 and communication produced along with the said affidavit is misconceived. In communication dated 29.12.2012 between the General Manager of GIDC, Gandhinagar to the Divisional Manager (CG), GIDC, Ankleshwar, there is no reference with regard to the land in question of the petitioner. Thus, there was no question of release of the land of the petitioner from acquisition and on the basis of the said communication it cannot be said that the award dated 16.06.2011 is a back-dated award.
26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the reliefs Page 24 of 25 C/SCA/2010/2016 CAV JUDGMENT as prayed for in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
(R.SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) Jani Page 25 of 25