Gujarat High Court
Lalitbhai Punjabhai Patel & 3 vs State Of Gujarat & 2 on 1 April, 2016
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Z.K.Saiyed
C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7009 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
==========================================================
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 or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
LALITBHAI PUNJABHAI PATEL & 3....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PM BHATT, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 4
MR.KRUTIK A. PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
MR HS MUNSHAW, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 01/04/2016
Page 1 of 21
HC-NIC Page 1 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016
C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to declare acquisition of the lands bearing Survey Nos.556/1 and 556/2 of Village:Gotri, Taluka & District:Vadodara, as illegal on account of wrongly invoking urgency clause contained in Section 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners have further prayed that the consent award dated 30.11.1992 may be declared as illegal and the respondents be directed to return the land of the petitioners.
2. Brief facts are as under.
3. Petitioners are all heirs of deceased Punjabhai Patel and were coowners of lands bearing Survey Nos.556/1 and 556/2 of Village:Gotri, admeasuring 4047 sq.mtrs. and 3667 sq.mtrs. respectively. The Vadodara Urban Development Authority required such land for construction of residential units for middle and low income group of the society. In order to acquire such lands of the petitioners alongwith other neighboring lands, therefore, a notification under Section 4(1) of the the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on Page 2 of 21 HC-NIC Page 2 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT 10.04.1992. The acquiring body invoking urgency clause contained in Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, without inviting and dealing with objections in terms of Clause 5A of the Act, proceeded to issue declaration under Section 6(1) of the Act on 17.06.1992. A consent award came to be passed in terms of Section 11(2) of the Act on 30.11.1992. With payment of compensation pursuant to such consent award, the possession of the land was also taken over by the Government and handed over to Vadodara Urban Development Authority.
4. It appears that on account of various reasons, the entire proposed housing scheme could not be developed. The lands of the petitioners as well as several other land owners in the vicinity remained unutilized for a substantial period of time. The petitioner No.3 herein therefore, filed Special Civil Application No.2514 of 2007 and prayed for a direction for quashing and setting aside the entire acquisition proceedings in respect of petitioner's land. In such petition also, the Court was concerned with the acquisition of the land bearing Survey Nos.556/1 and 556/2 of Village:Gotri. The petitioner had contended Page 3 of 21 HC-NIC Page 3 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT before the High Court that the entire acquisition was by way of colourable exercise of powers and was based on total non application of mind on part of the authorities. The petitioner in the said petition therefore, in addition to praying for quashing and setting aside the acquisition proceedings had also prayed for returning of the land to the petitioner on the ground that the authorities no longer needed such land for development. The Division Bench of High Court by judgment dated 03.12.2007 dismissed the petition, noting that the Vadodara Urban Development Authority had developed part of the land but midway through the implementation of the scheme, the Vadodara Municipal Corporation has proposed Town Planning Schemes No.60 and 61 of Village:Gotri and Village:Atladara by preparing draft schemes. The Court was of the opinion that it cannot be stated that the land acquired is not going to be used for the purpose for which it was acquired. The Court referred to various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including in case of State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., reported in AIR 1997 SC 2703 to come to the conclusion that at any rate, once the Page 4 of 21 HC-NIC Page 4 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT land was validly acquired, the same cannot be regranted to the original owner. The writ petition by the judgment dated 03.12.2007 was dismissed. Against said judgment, the petitioner therein i.e. present petitioner No.3 preferred Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court was came to be dismissed on 03.03.2008.
5. The entire controversy regarding acquisition and the prayer of regrant of land should therefore, have been settled. However, on the premise that the petitioners came upon the letter dated 26.03.2008 written by the Vadodara Urban Development Authority to the Municipal Corporation, Vadodara, in which it showed inability to utilize the land in question for housing scheme, this fresh petition has been filed. Before filing the petition, the petitioners had issued a notice dated 07.08.2013 to the authorities including Vadodara Urban Development Authority, in which they referred to the said letter dated 26.03.2008 of Vadodara Urban Development Authority to the Commissioner, Vadodara Municipal Corporation and requested that the land be returned to them. When such request was not granted, this petition came to be Page 5 of 21 HC-NIC Page 5 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT filed.
6. Learned counsel Shri P.M.Bhatt for the petitioners submitted that the land which was acquired way back in the year 1992, invoking urgency clause, has remained unutilized till date, clearly showing frustration of the purpose and wrong invocation of urgency. He placed heavy reliance on the letter dated 26.03.2008 written by the Vadodara Urban Development Authority suggesting that due to lack of demand for housing, the Vadodara Urban Development Authority no longer intends to develop a further housing scheme. He drew our attention to the affidavit filed by Vadodara Urban Development Authority dated 30.03.2007 in the earlier Writ Petition No.2514 of 2007, in which, a contrary stand was taken that the land is still needed for the same purpose for which it was acquired. He therefore submitted that the land should be returned after declaring the entire acquisition proceedings as illegal and unlawful.
7. Learned counsel Shri Munshaw on the other hand opposed the petition contending that on identical issues, the petitioner No.3 had approached the High Court earlier. The petition was dismissed. Special Page 6 of 21 HC-NIC Page 6 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT Leave Petition against judgment of the High Court was also dismissed. He relied on the detailed affidavit in reply dated 27.02.2015 filed by Vadodara Urban Development Authority to point out that substantial number of housing units have already been constructed and alloted to weaker section of the society on concessional terms without charging any amount towards land cost. Further development could not take place on account of the draft Town Planning Scheme being framed by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation. He submitted that even today, possession of the final plots have not been given to Vadodara Urban Development Authority. It still requires the land for the said public purpose for which they were acquired. He lastly submitted that at any rate as per the settled law, the land once validly acquired, cannot be regranted to the original owners even if the purpose for which the acquisition was made is either exhausted or frustrated.
8. We may recall that questioning this very acquisition of land bearing Survey Nos.556/1 and 556/2 of Gotri, one of the joint owners who is petitioner No.3 in this petition had approached the High Court by Page 7 of 21 HC-NIC Page 7 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT filing Special Civil Application No.2514 of 2007. In such petition also, the grounds and prayers were substantially similar. In the petition, for invocation of urgency clause, non utilization of lands for years together after acquisition was cited. Prayer for regrant of land was also made. All these contentions and prayers were examined by the Division Bench by the order dated 03.12.2007 in the following manner:
"7. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, perused the averments made in the petition and the documents forming part of the petition as well as the reply affidavit filed by the respondentVUDA and the judgements cited at the Bar.
8. It is not in dispute that the land bearing Survey Nos.556/1 and 556/2 of Village: Gotri, Taluka & District: Baroda was originally owned, possessed and cultivated by the petitioner prior to 1992; the respondentState published a notification under Section 4 of the Act on 16th January, 1992 declaring its intention to acquire the land of the petitioner and other agriculturists for the public purpose of the Land Development Scheme of VUDA; the respondent thereafter published a declaration under Section6 of the Act on 6th June, 1992 acquiring the land of the petitioner and others for the public purpose of the Land Development Scheme of VUDA. It is not disputed that the respondent has also invoked the urgency clause under Section 17 of the Act and directed that the possession Page 8 of 21 HC-NIC Page 8 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT of the land under acquisition be taken over on expiration of fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice under Section 9(1) of the Act and consequently, the possession was taken over from the petitioner. It appears from the records that thereafter, consent award was passed on 30th November, 1992 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.182/ per sq. mtr. in respect of the acquired land. It is also not in dispute that along with the land of the petitioner, the land of other owners of Village: Gotri and Village: Atladra was also acquired vide the consent award and that too, for the public purpose of the Land Development Scheme of VUDA. It is also not in dispute that VUDA has put up a residential scheme for the urban poor people on a huge chunk of land admeasuring 29,745 sq. mtrs. of Village: Atladra and 15,885 sq. mtrs. of Village: Gotri without charging any price. Thereafter, the Municipal Corporation of Vadodara has proposed Town Planning Scheme Nos.60 and 61 for the land of Village: Gotri as well as Village: Atladra and prepared a draft scheme. Therefore, 30% of the land has gone towards roads, common plots, etc. as per the Town Planning Scheme. So far as Revenue Survey Nos.572/Paiki and 573 are concerned, the same are renumbered as Final Plot Nos.47/1 and 47/2 under the scheme and are allotted to VUDA and VUDA has plotted the said two final plots into 38 subplots and fixed the upset price of Rs.2,700/ to Rs.3,000/ per sq. mtr. through the Price Committee of VUDA and 38 plots were sold through a public auction.
9. The contention that the respondentVUDA did not develop the land for a period of fourteen years and thereafter, with a view to make profit decided to sell the said land to the private individuals, has no substance. It is true that the land of the petitioner came to be acquired way back in the year 1992 and since then, the said land Page 9 of 21 HC-NIC Page 9 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT of Village: Gotri is under the process of development and a Town Planning Scheme has been introduced covering the land of Village: Atladra and Village: Gotri and sanction is accorded to the preliminary Town Planning Scheme. Till the scheme is finalised by the State Government and final plot is given, it would not be possible for VUDA to divide the said land into subplots and after all the procedure is over, the Price Committee of VUDA shall decide the upset price of the acquired land and thereafter, it will be open for VUDA to sell the said plots by inviting offers by way of a public auction.
10. In the aforesaid undisputed factual backdrop, this Court is of the opinion that it cannot be said that the acquired land is not going to be used for the purpose for which it came to be acquired. The notification under Section 4 of the Act itself postulates that the land is proposed to be acquired for the public purpose of the Land Development Scheme of VUDA and from the record of the case, it transpires that VUDA is still adhering to the said public purpose even today. Therefore, it is wrong to contend that the land of the petitioner, which came to be acquired way back in the year 1992 by the consent award, is not going to be used for the purpose for which it came to be acquired.
11. The submission of the learned Advocate of the petitioner that by virtue of paragraph 328 of the Manual, the petitioner is entitled to return of the acquired land if the same is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired, has no substance. According to us, the paragraph contained in the said Manual is nothing but merely an administrative instruction and guideline and it has no force of law. Besides this, a perusal of the said paragraph makes it clear that "these orders do not apply to N.A. Page 10 of 21 HC-NIC Page 10 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT lands or lands having potentiality for N.A. use". Admittedly, the acquired land is having potentiality for N.A. use, therefore, VUDA has acquired the land for the public purpose of the Land Development Scheme. The purpose of the Land Development Scheme means that after dividing the land into subplots, the land is to be earmarked for the residential zone, commercial zone, etc. and necessary amenities like roads, water, drainage, electricity lines, etc. have to be provided.
12. In the judgement in the case of Jal Sampatti Parivar (supra) relied upon by Mr. A.J. Patel, the learned single Judge of this Court had an occasion to deal with paragraph 328 of the Manual and it is held that if the acquired land is not required to be retained by the Government for any public purpose, then, it is required to be offered to the original owner from whom the land was acquired at the market price. In our opinion, this judgement will not come to the rescue of the petitioner to advance the case that if the land is not required for the public purpose, then, it be regranted to him.
In the instant case, the acquired land is very much required by VUDA for the public purpose of the Land Development Scheme and that it is under the process of development and is now at a final stage. Besides this, as per the ratio laid down by the learned single Judge in the said reported decision, an offer can be made to the original owner to give the land at the prevailing market price. In the instant case, VUDA would fix the upset price after taking the opinion of the Price Committee and thereafter, invite offers from private individuals by a public auction and at that point of time, the petitioner can certainly purchase the plot, which would be offered by VUDA.
Page 11 of 21
HC-NIC Page 11 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016
C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT
13. In the case of Smt. Somawanti & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court has explained the meaning of public purpose and it is justiciability and this judgement is also not in any way helpful to the petitioner to claim the relief prayed for in the petition.
14. In the case of Lt. Governor of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court has held that once the land acquired has vested in the Government, the Government cannot withdraw from acquisition.
15. In the case of C. Padma & Ors. vs. Dy.
Secretary to the Govt. of T.N. & Ors.
[(1997) 2 S.C.C. 627], the Supreme Court has held that once the acquired land having vested in the State after paying compensation to the claimants, the claimants are not entitled to restitution of the possession on the ground that either original public purpose had ceased to be in operation or the land could not be used for any other purpose.
16. In the case of Chandragauda Ramgonda Patil & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., [(1996) 6 S.C.C. 405], the Supreme Court has held that the land acquired for a public purpose can be utilised for any other public purpose and once possession of the land is taken and land is vested in the Municipality free from all encumbrances, restitution of surplus land to the erstwhile owner cannot be ordered.
17. In the case of State of Kerala & Ors. vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai & Anr., [AIR 1997 SC 2703], the Supreme Court has held that the land remaining unutilised after achieving the public purpose should be put to public auction instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner.
18. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred to Page 12 of 21 HC-NIC Page 12 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT decisions to the facts of the instant case, this Court is of the opinion that when the land of the petitioner is acquired by VUDA in the year 1992 for the public purpose of the Land Development Scheme and when the scheme is under process of finalisation and as a part of the scheme, after plotting the land into subplots, VUDA would sell the same to the private individuals at the price fixed by the Price Committee, and that too, after incurring huge expenses by way of loss of interest for 14 years, loss of 30% land which would be utilised for the purpose of road, common plots, etc. under the Town Planning Scheme and loss of development charges, it cannot be said that VUDA is going to make any profit from the said acquired land. Therefore, in our humble opinion, no question of restitution or re grant of the the acquired land in favour of the petitioner would ever arise."
9. Many years later, this fresh petition has been filed, virtually for the same purpose. Of course, an additional element is sought to be involved in the nature of the said letter dated 26.03.2008 written by the Vadodara Urban Development Authority to the Commissioner, Vadodara Municipal Corporation. On the basis on this letter the petitioners contend that the land is no longer needed on account of diminished demand for housing. On such additional ground, now the petitioners make same set of prayers namely for declaring the acquisition as invalid for having wrongly invoked urgency under Section 17 of the Act Page 13 of 21 HC-NIC Page 13 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT and for regrant of the land since the purpose for which the land was acquired is no longer possible to be achieved.
10. For multiple reasons, such prayers cannot be granted. First and foremost, the entire issue was examined by the earlier Division Bench at considerable length in the above noted judgment dated 03.12.2007. It may be that such petition was filed only by present petitioner No.3 and the other three petitioners were not parties to such proceedings. In the strict sense of term therefore this judgment may not act as a resjudicata qua petitioners No.1, 2 and 4. Nevertheless, the entire petition was concerning the land acquisition of this very land bearing Survey Nos.556/1 and 556/2 of Gotri. If the other petitioners did not file earlier petition, but one of the family members and coowners did, they cannot claim ignorance about such proceedings which in any case they have not. Immediate question therefore, would be, would they be allowed to raise same contentions more than 20 years later without any reference to the question of delay and latches? Either they concede that the petitioner No.3 was Page 14 of 21 HC-NIC Page 14 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT acting for and on behalf of all petitioners when he filed the earlier petition in which case all of them would be bound by the High Court judgment, or they must explain why they remained silent for so many years.
11. Even otherwise, the question of raising objection to the acquisition in terms of Section 5A of the Act when the lands were acquired with consent would be a debatable one when the petitioners had willingly and voluntarily surrendered their land at an agreed rate of compensation offered by the authorities. They never objected to invocation of urgency clause at the relevant time. The question immediately would arise whether they can raise the question of denial of right to object?
12. We may however, examine the question of non utilization of land finally, though this question was also examined by the High Court in the petition filed by the petitioner No.3. Even then, the Vadodara Urban Development Authority has presented satisfactory explanation for not being able to utilize the land timely. In the affidavit in reply, following Page 15 of 21 HC-NIC Page 15 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT averments have been made which are substantially undenied:
"4. The respondent No.3 however submits that even the contents of non development of land raised by the petitioners by way of reiteration even in the present Special Civil Application are contrary to the facts and material on record. It is submitted that the land bearing revenue survey No.556/1 and 556/2 of Village Gotri was acquired as a huge project of establishing a Transport Nagar was undertaken by Vadodara Urban Development Authority. It is submitted that land acquisition proceedings were undertaken between 1992 to 1994 for acquisition of various revenue survey numbers in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It is submitted that the land owners of revenue survey No.556/1 and 556/2 of Village Gotri agreed for consent award and therefore, a Committee was appointed for fixation of market price and after considering various aspects and even discussion with the land owners, it was decided that the market rate would be between Rs.110 to Rs.182/. The respondent No.3 submits that subsequently the consent award dated 12/12/1992 was published and a copy of the said Award is annexed herewith and marked as AnnexureC. It is most respectfully stated that so far as the present petitioners are concerned, they were paid the compensation at the agreed rates and compensation of the land was handed over by them.
The respondent No.3 submits that so far as the land bearing revenue survey No.572/1 (Paiki) of Village Gotri is concerned, the same was sub plotted for the members of Middle Income Group of the Society and were sold by way of holding auction. The respondent No.3 submits that Vadodara Urban Development Authority has planned a Housing Page 16 of 21 HC-NIC Page 16 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT Scheme of 4000 residential units for the members of economically weaker section and lower income group and again the land price would not be counted while computing the cost of the house. In other words, the authority has always considered the interest of beneficiaries belonging to the lower strata of the Society. It is required to be pointed out that the responding authority is providing infrastructural facilities to the beneficiaries as well as the residents of surrounding area by way of planning development of the entire area. The authority has to spend a huge amount on infrastructural facilities and for that it has to plan its income as well as funds from other sources.
5. The respondent No.3 denies the averments and allegations that the land acquired by Vadodara Urban Development Authority is remained unused. It is most respectfully stated that in all 1522 Houses for the members of economically weaker section were constructed on land bearing revenue survey No.536, 542, 528, 537 & 538/1 admeasuring in all 26,145 sq.meters. It is pertinent to note that the cost of land was not charged from the beneficiaries under the Scheme as the same were meant for the members of economically weaker section only and hence it is clear that respondent No.3 has not acted for the welfare of the public at large.
6. The respondent No.3 submits that so far as the land bearing revenue survey No.572/1 (Paiki) of Village Gotri is concerned, the same are now within the territorial jurisdiction of Vadodara Municipal Corporation and it has planned a Town Planning Scheme. The respondent No.3 submits that revenue survey No.12/1, 31, 47/2 and 47/1 of Village Gotri are covered within the Town Planning Scheme No.60 (Gotri) while revenue survey No.556/1 and Page 17 of 21 HC-NIC Page 17 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT 556/2 originally owned by the present petitioners are under Town Planning Scheme No.1 (Gotri). It is submitted that Vadodara Municipal Corporation has declared its intention qua preparing of a Town Planning Scheme No.61 (Gotri) on 20/07/2000 under the provisions of Section41 of Gujarat Town Planning & Urban Development Act, 1976. It is submitted that from the date of declaration of award on 20/07/2000 it has become impossible for Vadodara Urban Development Authority to undertake developmental activities under the provisions of Section49 of the Act. It is humbly stated that Vadodara Municipal Corporation has submitted draft town planning Scheme No.61(Gotri) to the Government of Gujarat and the same is sanctioned and thereafter a Town Planning Officer is appointed in the year 2002. The respondent No.3 submits that as per the provisions of the Act, as soon as draft town planning Scheme is sanctioned by the State Government and the town planning officer is entrusted the draft town planning scheme for further action and finalization, the land of the entire area is in the jurisdiction of town planning officer. The respondent No.3 submits that the Act further provides that the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme is to be prepared by the Town Planning Officer and submitted to the State Government for further action and thereafter the respondent No.1 has to follow the due procedure laid down under the provisions of Act before granting the sanction to the Preliminary Town Planning Scheme. It is submitted that in view of this, the possession of final plots is to be handed over by Vadodara Municipal Corporation in the instant case subsequent to sanction of Preliminary Town Planning Scheme by Government of Gujarat.
It is submitted that in the instant case revenue survey No.556/1 & 556/2 of Village Gotri are given original plot No.34 and final plot No.34 in Town Planning Scheme Page 18 of 21 HC-NIC Page 18 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT No.61 of Gotri, but as the said Town Planning Scheme is still pending before the Town Planning Officer and further actions are pending, it is not possible for Vadodara Urban Development Authority to plan the development of the land. It is required to be pointed out that possession of the final plot No.34 is required to be handed over to Vadodara Urban Development Authority after following the provisions of Section67 & 68 of the Act and till then the respondent No.3 is not in a position to undertake any exercise for the development. In view of this, it is crystal clear that the averments & allegations made by the petitioners about non use of land are thoroughly baseless. It is stated that the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the land in question once the possession of the land is handed over to the respondent No.3 after entering into an Award and after acceptance of compensation determined at the market rate. The respondent No.3 craves leave to state that Vadodara Urban Development Authority is very much required the land in question for public purpose, but due to pending proceedings narrated hereinabove, it has to wait before taking further action."
13. From the above, it can be seen that after acquiring the petitioners' land and those of other land owners in the region through consent awards, the Vadodara Urban Development Authority constructed as many as 1522 residential units for weaker sections of the society utilizing 26,145 sq.mtrs. of acquired land. The authority also had planned for further 4000 such residential units again for the weaker section of Page 19 of 21 HC-NIC Page 19 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT the society. However, before such plan could be implemented, Vadodara Municipal Corporation initiated the steps of framing Town Planning Schemes. A draft scheme has already been framed. The final plots in various survey numbers falling within the schemes have not yet been handed over by the Corporation to Vadodara Urban Development Authority. Counsel for the Vadodara Urban Development Authority submitted that Vadodara Urban Development Authority has not shelved the plan for conservation of residential units and as and when the possession of final plots is handed over, Vadodara Urban Development Authority would undertake further steps in this regard. We may note that the letter dated 26.03.2008 written by the Chief Executive Authority of Vadodara Urban Development Authority does not represent a final decision, but only presents certain facts emerging at that time. This communication cannot be seen as a decision of Vadodara Urban Development Authority to drop the plan for further development of scheme for housing for weaker section of the societies.
14. Assuming that on account of reduced demand, the Vadodara Urban Development Authority is now going to Page 20 of 21 HC-NIC Page 20 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016 C/SCA/7009/2014 JUDGMENT build houses on the land, the same is a new development after acquisition due to changed circumstances. This cannot be a ground for regrant of the land to the original owner. As held by the Supreme Court in number of decisions, references to some of which we find in the earlier judgment of the High Court noted above, once the land is validly acquired for the public purpose, the same cannot be regranted to the original owners. It may be used for any other public purpose or even disposed of through auction.
15. For all these reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) ANKIT Page 21 of 21 HC-NIC Page 21 of 21 Created On Wed Apr 06 01:23:40 IST 2016