Gujarat High Court
Anil D Jethani vs Union Of India on 28 July, 2014
Author: Vijay Manohar Sahai
Bench: Vijay Manohar Sahai, R.P.Dholaria
C/SCA/14267/2011 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14267 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
ANIL D JETHANI
Versus
UNION OF INDIA,MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, RAILWAY BOARD, & 3
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SAURABH G AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UTKARSH SHARMA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
MR RAVI KARNAVAT, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 , 4
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR
SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Page 1 of 6
C/SCA/14267/2011 JUDGMENT
Date : 28/07/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJAY MANOHAR SAHAI) Page 2 of 6 C/SCA/14267/2011 JUDGMENT [1] By way of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the land acquisition proceedings initiated by Ministry of Railway, Railway Board and Competent Authority (Western DFC) for Special Railway Projects, Western Dedicated Freight Corridor.
[2] It is not disputed by learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties that the said Western Dedicated Freight Corridor is starting from Mumbai to Dadari, District: Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.
[3] In this petition, the petitioners have challenged the notification issued by Ministry of Railway on 16.03.2009 by which the land in District of Ahmedabad in the State of Gujarat is sought to be acquired. The Notification under section 20(A) of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short "the Act") is annexed to the petition wherein in the schedule, the description of the land which is sought to be acquired has been made. The land of the petitioners fall in village : Godhavi as mentioned in the chart of the notification. However, for sake of brevity, we have taken out the survey numbers and areas, as mentioned in para-10 of the petition, which is extracted below:-
"10.......... " A chart showing the details of petitioner land sought to be acquired is as below.
Sr.No. SR.No. / Area (in Sq.Mts.) Area (in Sq.Mts.) Area (in Sq.Mts.)
u/s.20E
BLK. No. Per Record Sec.20A Sec.20E
1 25 1-53-78 0-90-58 0-96-78
2 26/2/2 0-64-75 0-64-75 0-64-75
3 29 0-37-43 0-28-31 0-37-43
4 30 0-53-62 0-49-92 0-53-62
5 31/1 0-48-05 0-89-88 0-96-11
6 31/2 0-48-06
7 32 0-34-40 0-25-06 0-34-40
Total Sq.Mts. 4-40-09 3-48-50 3-83-09
Page 3 of 6
C/SCA/14267/2011 JUDGMENT
[4] The Central Government has exercised satisfaction under section 20(B) of the Act with regard to the plots and the area mentioned in the notification issued under section 20(A) of the Act. The aforesaid chart demonstrates that while issuing declaration / notification of acquisition under section 20(E) of the Act, the respondents have increased and/or decreased the area or have left out various plots, which were sought earlier and though survey numbers which were even not notified in notification under section 20(A) of the Act, were declared for acquisition under section 20(E) of the Act. Further, the plot numbers mentioned in the notification under section 20(A) of the Act proposes to acquire a particular numbers of plot. However, while issuing notification under section 20(E) of the Act, sub divisions of the plots, which were not the subject matter of the notification issued under section 20(A) of the Act are shown to be acquired. There can be no presumption that particular number of plot is acquired or sub division of the plot has been acquired by the respondents. It is not disputed in affidavit-in-reply of the respondent that the satisfaction of the Central Government which is exercised at the time of issuing notification under section 20(A) of the Act is mandatory and such satisfaction is not required to be recorded while issuing notification / declaration under section 20(E) of the Act meaning thereby that a plot or a survey number which has been subject matter under section 20(A) can only be the subject matter of declaration under section 20(E) of the Act. The subject of declaration under section 20(E) of the Act cannot be something different than what was proposed to be acquired under section 20(A) of the Act. In the instant case, we find that notification issued under section 20(A) and 20(E) of the Act are entirely different. The chart demonstrates that plot numbers were different sub plots which were not sought to be acquired are notified for acquisition under section 20(E) of the Act. For the plot numbers acquired under section 20(A) of Page 4 of 6 C/SCA/14267/2011 JUDGMENT the Act, there were sub division declared under section 20(E) of the Act. The total area under section 20(A) is 34850 square meters whereas the area declared under section 20(E) was 38309 square meters which shows that the entire proceedings of acquisition and declaration under section 20(E) of the Act are illegal and without any jurisdiction and the respondents had no power or authority to acquire the land contrary to the statutory provisions of the Act and, therefore, the notification and declaration issued by the respondents under the said Act so far as District of Ahmedabad in State of Gujarat is concerned, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
[5] Learned counsel for the respondents makes a request that the entire notification issued by the Railway Authority, may not be quashed since the petitioners have filed writ petition only qua their lands situated in Ahmedabad District in State of Gujarat.
[6] Learned counsel for the respondents states that the award was passed in the year 2010, but the compensation has not been awarded to the petitioners.
Since we have quashed the notification, there is no question of paying compensation.
[7] In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. We quash and set aside the notification issued by the respondents qua petitioners only. So far as the writ petitions which are filed in other State, we leave the question to be decided by appropriate forum. The acquisition proceedings vide notification No. S.O.775 (E) dated 16.03.2009, notification No. S.O. 729 (E) dated 15.03.2010 as well as the awards passed by the respondents for acquiring the lands of the petitioners are hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.Page 5 of 6
C/SCA/14267/2011 JUDGMENT
(V.M.SAHAI, J.)
(R.P.DHOLARIA,J.)
vijay
Page 6 of 6