Gujarat High Court
Pitroda Corporation vs M M Piyaja & 5 on 1 March, 2017
Author: A.J.Desai
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/SCA/462/2015 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 462 of 2015
==========================================================
PITRODA CORPORATION....Petitioner(s)
Versus
M M PIYAJA & 5....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DG SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR. ALPESH BHATT, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ARCHANA R ACHARYA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 5
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 6
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
Date : 01/03/2017
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Mr. Alpesh Bhatt, learned AGP for the respondent no. 1 waives service of notice of rule and Ms. Archana Acharya, learned advocate waives service of rule on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 to 5. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
2. Respondent no. 6 is permitted to be deleted. Heard Mr. D.G. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Alpesh Bhatt, learned AGP for the respondent no.1 and Ms. Archana Acharya, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 5.
3. By way of present petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - original respondent no. 1 in Land Page 1 of 5 HC-NIC Page 1 of 5 Created On Mon Aug 14 02:24:14 IST 2017 C/SCA/462/2015 ORDER Acquisition Reference Case No. 123 of 2011 has prayed as under:
(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned interim Common Order passed below Ex. 14 and Ex. 24 dated 26.11.2014 by the learned Civil Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 123 of 2011 annexed at Annexure - A hereto.
(B) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of impugned Common Order passed below Ex. 14 and Ex. 24 dated 26.11.2014 by th learned Civil Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 123 of 2011 annexed at Annexure - A hereto.
(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition, Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to direct the learned Civil Court to make the payment of awarded amount to the Petitioner or in the alternative the said amount may be invested in fixed deposit and the interest thereon be paid to the Petitioner during the pendency of the Reference case proceedings.
(D) An ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of paragraph 9 (B) and 9 (C)above may kindly be granted.
(E) Any other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
4. Brief facts arise from the record are as under:-
The present petitioner which is a partnership firm registered under Indian Partnership Act, sold different plots of revenue survey no. 46 admeasuring around 3 Acres 6 Gunthas of village- Bholav, District Bharuch by different sale deed in the year 1986 onwards. Registered sale deed was executed between the parties. Piece of land was kept as common plot of the aforesaid peace of land.Page 2 of 5
HC-NIC Page 2 of 5 Created On Mon Aug 14 02:24:14 IST 2017 C/SCA/462/2015 ORDER The piece of land which was kept open was acquired by the State of Gujarat for construction of four lane road between Bharuch and Dahej. The award was passed by the Collector, under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and ultimately reference was made under section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act to the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch. The land acquisition officer brought to the notice to the Reference Court that respondent nos. 2 to 4 who had purchased the common plot are required to be heard before deciding the impugned reference case and hence application was given on behalf of land acquisition officer at Exh. 14. Similar application was filed at Exh. 24 by one of plot holder. Said application was opposed by the present petitioner. However, by impugned order dated 26.11.2014, the same has been allowed, hence, this petition.
5. Mr. D.G.Shukla appearing for the petitioner submitted that respondents to whom the plots were sold individually had no right, title in the common plot which has been acquired by the concerned authority. He would submit that specific averment is incorporated in the sale deed that the plot holders have no right, title or interest in the common plot. It was also further clarified in the sale deed that ownership of the common plot remained with seller and therefore, the petitioner only is entitled for amount of compensation which is awarded and might be increased by the Reference Court in the reference proceedings. It further submitted that Trial Court has erred in allowing applications at Exh. 14 and Exh. 24 and submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.
6. Ms. Archana Acharaya, learned advocate for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 opposed the petition. She would submit that the learned Trial Page 3 of 5 HC-NIC Page 3 of 5 Created On Mon Aug 14 02:24:14 IST 2017 C/SCA/462/2015 ORDER Court only joined plot holders as party respondent, however, has not observed anything against the petitioner while joining them as party respondent. It is the case of the respondent that common plot was kept only for the purpose of use of the plot holders to whom individual plots were sold by the petitioner. She would submit that there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petition be dismissed.
7. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. Perused the impugned order and applications submitted by the State of Gujarat Land Acquisition Officer as well as private party and the sale deed executed by the petitioner in favour of the individual party.
8. It is an undisputed fact that individual plots were sold to several persons and piece of land was kept open for use of plot holders as common plot and they were using the same since 1986. However, without dealing with the rights of either party, I am of the opinion that if the plots holders who have been ordered to be joined as party respondent in the land reference case are heard that after giving opportunity to all concerned would not prejudice the petitioner.
9. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. The impugned order dated 26.11.2014 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch below applications Exh. 14 and 24 in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 123 of 2011 is hereby confirmed. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and has not expressed any opinion about the same.
10.Rule is discharged.
Page 4 of 5HC-NIC Page 4 of 5 Created On Mon Aug 14 02:24:14 IST 2017 C/SCA/462/2015 ORDER (A.J.DESAI, J.) VARSHA Page 5 of 5 HC-NIC Page 5 of 5 Created On Mon Aug 14 02:24:14 IST 2017