Gujarat High Court
Matiyed Gram Panchayat vs State Of Gujarat & on 29 August, 2013
Author: Vijay Manohar Sahai
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, A.G.Uraizee
MATIYED GRAM PANCHAYAT....Petitioner(s)V/SSTATE OF GUJARAT C/SCA/13492/2013 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13492 of 2013 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI 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, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================================ MATIYED GRAM PANCHAYAT....Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR HEMANG R RAWAL, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE Date : 29/8/2013 ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) Heard Mr. Shalin N. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel assisted with Mr. H.R.Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner.
The present petition is filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:
10(a) Your Lordships be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
(b)Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus quashing and setting the impugned order dated 03/11/2011 passed by the respondent No. 1 and further be pleased to direct the respondents to proceed further with the acquisition proceedings and to acquire the land bearing Survey Nos. 67, 68, 69/A, 69/B, 70 and 73/A situated at Mouje Matiyed, Taluka Ankleshwar District Bharuch for the petitioner Gram Panchayat and to allot the said land to the petitioner panchayat forthwith;
(c)Pending admission, hearing and/or final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to restrain the respondents from graing any N.A. permission for conversion of the land bearing Survey Nos. 67, 68, 69/B, 70 and 73/A situated at Mouje Matiyed, Taluka Ankleshwar District Bharuch and further be pleased to direct the respondents to reserve the said land bearing Survey Nos. 67, 68, 69/A, 69/B, 70 and 73/A situated at Mouje Matiyed, Taluka Ankleshwar District Bharuch for the good cause of the petitioner panchayat;
(d)Such other and further order relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem just, fit and expedient be granted in favour of the petitioner,
(e)Costs of this petition be provided for to the petitioner.
Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel has vehemently urged that the notification under section 4 was issued by the State Government on 14/9/2010 for acquiring survey nos. 67, 68, 69 (A),(B), 70 and 73(A). On the basis of the proposal received from the Acquisition Establishment, District Development Officer, Bharuch, Taluka Development Officer, as well as on the basis of the report of Mamlatdar, Ankleshwar, this notification has been cancelled by the District Collector, Bharuch under section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The order dated 3/11/2011 has been challenged in this writ petition. Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel has urged that the acquisition proceedings has been cancelled or dropped on the ground that survey no. 963 admeasuring He.Are.0-36-00 and survey no. 964 admeasuring He.Are.0-63-00 are available but there are 98 beneficiaries, who are under below Poverty Line. He has urged that aforesaid two plots are not enough for the acquisition as one plot is very small and other plot is bigger and occupied by one Tribe Family. The acquisition order does not take into account in future to the person, who will be entitled under below poverty scheme as no more gamtal land is available. He has also urged that the impugned order of the Collector suffers from the complete non-application of mind as a result, this Court has jurisdiction to exercise the powers of judicial review of administrative action or inaction. Hence, he has urged that this petition may be admitted.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find any reason or merit to interfere with the impugned order of the District Collector, Bharuch. The Apex Court in a very recent decision in case of Jayamma & Ors Vs. Deputy Commissioner, Hassan Dist., Hassan & Ors (AIR 2013 SC 1972) has held that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Court to compel the Government to acquire the property, otherwise than as per the Land Acquisition Act. The relevant observation of the Apex Court are extracted below:
9......Whether to acquire a particular property or not is for the Government to decide. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Court to compel the Government to acquire any property, otherwise than as per the Land Acquisition Act. No doubt, the High Court exercises judicial review of administrative action or inaction. But having regard to the various facts and circumstances or factors, it is for the Government to consider at the permissible stage as to whether a particular property is to be acquired or whether an Award is to be passed pursuant to proceedings already initiated under Section 4(1) of the Act. The Act is a complete Code as far as such decisions are concerned and Government is well within their jurisdiction to act as per the scheme provided under the Act. Merely because proceedings under Section 4 of the land Acquisition Act has been initiated, it is not required under law to acquire the land. It is not within the jurisdiction of the Court to compel the Government to pass an Award pursuant to Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act even when it is followed by the declaration.
In view of the above stated settled proposition of law expounded by the Apex Court, the petitioner can not compel the State Government to acquire the land. So far as the contention of Mr. Mehta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the Court has got powers to exercise the judicial review of the administrative inaction on the part of the Collector, Bharuch in dropping the acquisition proceedings is concerned, no doubt this Court in an extreme case can always exercise the powers of judicial review to determine the administrative action or inaction. However, the perusal of impugned order of the District Collector, Bharuch does not warrant exercise of judicial review because it is a well reasoned order, wherein it is pointed out in clear terms as to why the acquisition proceedings are dropped though notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Collector, Bharuch. The impugned order does not suffer from illegality warranting interference by this Court.
For the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is dismissed in limine.
(V.M.SAHAI, J.) (A.G.URAIZEE,J) *asma Page 6 of 6