Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"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  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. 

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  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."