Gujarat High Court
Hasmukh Shantilal Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 9 October, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/14012/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14012 of 2025
==========================================================
HASMUKH SHANTILAL PATEL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAULIK G. NANAVATI, ADVOCATE FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for
the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MS HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.
JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 09/10/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the record. The present petition has been presented on 29.09.2025 with the following reliefs:-
"6(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the acquisition proceeding commenced under preliminary notification dated 11.03.2020 issued under Section 11 of the Act (Annexure P-2) has lapsed on account of non- publishing of declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act within a period of 12 months from publication of the preliminary notification;Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:15:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14012/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined
(b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus quashing and setting notification dated 4.01.2022 under Section 19(7) of the Act (Annexure P-3) containing decision of the State Government to extend the time for making the declaration under Section 19(1) of the Act by 01 year with retrospective effect from 11.03.2021 as being wholly without jurisdiction and therefore nullity in the eye of law;
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus quashing and setting notification dated 4.01.2022 made under Section 19(1) of the Act (Annexure P-4) published beyond a period of 01 year from publication of notification under Section 11 of the Act as also the award dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P-5) determining compensation as being null and void and non-existent in the eye of law.
(d) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring that the petitioners have been unlawfully dispossessed of their land, which otherwise has not lawfully vested in the State Government, and pass an order directing restoration of the land to the petitioners or alternatively direct computation of compensation payable to the petitioners as per the current date market value of the land;
(e) To pass an ex parte ad interim order restraining the Requiring Body to undertake any activity over the land claimed to have been acquired in continuation of process initiation under preliminary notification dated 11.03.2020 pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:15:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14012/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined petition;
(f) Pass any other order in favour of the petitioners as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in order to further ends of justice."
2. The facts relevant to decide the controversy on hands are that the land in question, belonging to the petitioners herein [four in numbers], had been acquired for the purpose of a Railway Project of gauge conversion of "Miyagam Karjan- Dabhoi - Samalayla" railway line for and on behalf of the Western Railway, in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 [in short as 'The Act, 2013']. A copy of the preliminary notification under Section-11(1) of the Act, 2013 is at Page-'32' of the paper-book which dated 11.03.2020. A perusal thereof indicates that the acquisition is of lands area 0-68-76 hectares situated at Dabhoi Taluka of Vadodara District for the project in question. The notification contains description of various parcels of land in the schedule attached thereto. The lands in question, subject matter of consideration herein comprised of four plots having total area of 1667 sq. mtrs. as under:-
Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:15:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14012/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined Sr. Name of the Owner Description of Area Occupied No. Land (sq. mtrs.) (Survey No.)
1. Patel Hasmukhbhai 490 605 sq. mtrs.
Shantibhai
2. Patel Maheshbhai 1415 353 sq. mtrs.
Ambubhai
3. Patel Narendrabhai 465 334 sq. mtrs.
Kantibhai
4. Patel Satishbhai 523 375 sq. mtrs.
Total Area 1667 sq. mtrs.
3. The notification under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2013 has been published on 04.01.2022. With the aid of a further notification under Section-19(7) dated 04.01.2022 extending the time period for publication of the notification under Section-19(1), the declaration notification of the same date i.e. 04.01.2022 was published. The appropriate Government, thus, has exercised the power for publication of the notification dated 04.01.2022 under Section-19(1) of the Act, 2013 as per the second proviso to Sub-section (7) of Section-19 which confers power upon the appropriate Government to extend the period of 12 months, if in its opinion circumstances exist justifying the same.
4. It is further pertinent to note that in continuation of the Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:15:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14012/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined acquisition proceedings, the award has been declared on 27.04.2022 and the compensation determined under the award has been deposited by the acquiring body. The further statements in the writ petition are that the compensation amount has also been disbursed and received by the petitioners herein; possession of the lands has been taken over by the State Government and handed over to the acquiring Body namely the Western Railway and further that the work of the project-in-question has already commenced. It is, however, pertinent to note that though the statements in this regard can be found in paragraph-2.8 of the writ petition but there is complete silence about the dates on which the compensation amount had been received by the petitioners, the possession of the land-in-question has been taken and the work of the project-in-question was commenced.
5. Without any explanation as to the period of 03 years latches in filing the present petition, the petitioners are seeking a declaration that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed on account of the wrong exercise of power on the part of the appropriate Government in issuing notification dated 04.01.2022 under the second proviso to Sub-section (7) of Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:15:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14012/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined Section-19.
6. We may also note that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners were well aware of the acquisition proceedings throughout the process and there is not even a whisper in the writ petition as to any action if initiated by the petitioners to challenge the notification issued under Section-
19(1) read with Section-19(7), at the relevant point of time or agitate the issue before any court of law.
7. The petitioners remained not only silent spectators of the acquisition proceedings and also participated in the exercise of the preparation of the award under Section 23 of the Act, 2013 and have also received compensation without any demur.
8. The result is that the acquisition proceedings have been brought to its logical end and the public work for which the land-in-question has been acquired, had already commenced. At this stage, after more than 03 years, it is not permissible for us to sustain the challenge for the simple reason that land- owners who remained silent inspite of due knowledge of the Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:15:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14012/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined acquisition proceedings and have acquiesced with the proceedings by even receiving compensation cannot be permitted to turn around and say that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed on account of illegal or wrong exercise of power on the part of the State Government so as to hold them entitled for a higher amount of compensation.
9. In so far as the challenge to the exercise of power under Section 19(7) of the Act, 2013 on the part of the appropriate Government is concerned, the aid is taken to the decision of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Writ Petition No.3420 of 2019 decided on 01.05.2020. Much reliance has been placed to the observations made therein that the extension order passed under Section 19(7) of the Act cannot be said to be a valid exercise of power under the second proviso to Section-19(7) because such extension can only be granted within the 12 months period from the date of expiry i.e. before the expiry of the period of one year from the date of publication of the notification under Section-11.
10. Pertinent is to note that the said observations were made by the Telangana High Court in the writ petitions filed Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:15:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14012/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined in the month of April, 2019 itself, where extension order issued by the appropriate Government was dated 28.02.2019. There was absolutely no latches or acquiescence on the part of the petitioners therein. The ratio of the said decision, as such, would be of no help to the petitioners herein. Same is the position in two other decisions of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.108902 of 2016 decided on 29.01.2024 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.22704 of 2024 decided on 28.08.2024, relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
11. In so far as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nareshbhai Bhagubhai & Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in 2019 (15) SCC 1, where the Apex Court had dealt with the challenge to the acquisition under the Railways Act on the ground of non-adjudication of the objections filed by the land-owners under Section-20D of the Railways Act. Pertinent is to note that the issue before the Apex Court was that in absence of an order passed on the objections under Section-20D whether the consequential steps could be invalidated. The challenge by the land-owners in the said matter before the Apex Court was raised at the relevant point Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:15:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14012/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined of time, i.e. in the year 2013 itself when awards were passed under Section 20A of the Railways Act, 1989. The facts noted by the Apex Court in the decision clearly reflect that the appellants, who raised the challenge had filed RTI application in the year 2013 itself before the competent authority seeking a certified copy of the order passed on the objections filed by them. On communication of the said orders, the appellants therein had challenged the acquisition proceedings though with some delay, on the ground that no order had been passed on the objections in accordance with Section-20D(2) of the Railways Act. The appellants also prayed for quashing and setting aside of the acquisition notifications. The Apex Court, upon making an inquiry about the manner in which the objections filed by the appellants therein had been dealt with by the competent authority, has reached at the conclusion that the entire exercise of power in publishing notifications without dealing with the specific objections of the land- owners/appellants therein, denying the valuable right of the land-owners, was illegal. However, the relief was appropriately moulded qua the appellants therein with the observations in Paragraph-'38' of the judgment that the land- owners who were satisfied with the amount awarded and have Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:15:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14012/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined not approached the Court will not be entitled to get any benefit of the said decision. The relief of additional compensation was granted to the appellant therein as per the current market value of the land-in-question in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the said case.
12. The aforesaid decision of the Apex Court as relied by the learned counsel for the petitioners to press the alternative prayer made in the present petition to mould the relief for grant of additional/ higher amount of compensation, as such, will be of no help to the petitioners.
13. The fact remains that the scope of inquiry into the validity of the acquisition proceedings within the scope of power of judicial review of the High Court is confined to the decision making process. The acquisition proceedings having been undertaken under a statutory provisions can only be upset in a case where the decision making process is found contrary to the statutory provision or the decision having been taken in a malafide or colourable exercise of power. In our considered opinion, such a scrutiny is not open for us in the facts and circumstances of the present case where the Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:15:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/14012/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/10/2025 undefined petitioners themselves have acquiesced with the acquisition proceedings where they not only have raised no objections during the entire process but also received the compensation without any demur, in the year 2022 itself. The challenge in the present petition is nothing but an afterthought. The question of valid exercise of power under the second proviso to Sub-section (7) of Section-19, as such, cannot be seen by us at this juncture. While weighing the public interest vis-a-vis private interest on a scale, we are of the view, any interference at this stage would unnecessary disturb the process which had already been brought to its logical end and also cause unnecessary burden to the public exchequer. In the crux, we do not find any good ground to entertain the present petition.
14. The writ petition is dismissed being suffered from inordinate, unexplained latches on the part of the petitioners.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) A. B. VAGHELA Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by A. B. VAGHELA(HC01079) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 23:15:30 IST 2025