Research › Browse › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 126 (GUJ)

VALLABBHAI KABABHAI v. STATE

1993-03-10

R.A.MEHTA, R.K.ABICHANDANI

body1993
R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner challenge the acquisition of his land bearing Survey Nos. 7/1 and 66 part of village Bakshipur. The said land alongwith many other lands have been acquired for the Demi Irrigation Scheme. The followings are the contentions raised by the learned Counsel. (1) That the award has not been made within a period of two years from the date of publication of the Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. (2) Section 6 Notification said to have been published on 7th February 91 was not published in respect of the land of the petitioner and that the record has been tampered with and the publication on 7/02/1991 has been interpolated after coming to know of the present petition. (3) That the steps under Sections 7 8 and 9 have been taken before 7th February 1991. No declaration under Section 6 have been published on 7/02/1991. ( 2 ) AS regards the first contention the petitioner has averred that no award was made and published on 6th February 93 and even 8/02/1993 the award was not available. In the affidavit-in-reply it has been pointed out that the award in fact was made on 6/02/1992 after obtaining the approval of the Government on 5/02/1992. The draft award was submitted to the Government long back and the sanction was personally taken by the Land Acquisition Officer and thereupon immediately the award was declared. The averment of the petitioner that one Ramjibhai Mohanbhai had had sought the information and he was specifically informed that the award was getting ready and cannot be shown has been denied and in fact it is stated that said Ramjibhai was present when the award was declared on 6/02/1991 and that said Ramjibhai was served a notice under Section 12 (2) on 6/02/1993 itself. The petitioner has not produced the affidavit of Ramjibhai Mohanbhai. It is thus clear that the award has been made on 6/02/1991 after obtaining prior approval of the State Government. The petitioner has not produced the affidavit of Ramjibhai Mohanbhai. It is thus clear that the award has been made on 6/02/1991 after obtaining prior approval of the State Government. ( 3 ) IT is submitted that the award made on 6/02/1993 is beyond time and the proceeding for land acquisition lapsed under Section 11 (A) of the Act which provides that the Collector shall make an award under Section 11 within a period of two years from the date of publication of the declaration and if no award is made within that period the entire proceeding of the acquisition of the land shall lapse. In the present case the award is made on 6/02/1993 and according to the respondents the publication of the declaration under Section 6 was on 7/02/1991 According to the petitioner this 7/02/1991 declaration is got up and interpolated after filing of the petition and on receipt of the notice was made returnable on 12/01/1993 and was ordered to be issued on 30 Apart from the affidavit-in-reply which shows that the declaration under Section 6 was published at the locality on 7/02/1991 we have also gone through the original record of the Land Acquisition Officer and it is found that even before the present petition was filed there is correspondence showing that Section 6 declaration was published on 7/02/1991. Therefore the say of the petitioner that interpolation and tampering of the record has been done after coming to know of the present petition is completely knocked out. ( 4 ) IT is submitted that the so-called publication of 7/02/1991 does not indicate that the said publication was in respect of the land of the petitioner. This argument is based on the fact that only Rojkam of the publication is produced and what was actually published is not produced and the argument is based on the absence of the document that was actually published. The Rojkam states that the notification which has been published has been published with annexures. The forwarding letter for that declaration dated 23 shows that as the earlier publication was not properly done the another copy of the said notification was sent for publication. That notification includes the land of the petitioner. The Rojkam states that the notification which has been published has been published with annexures. The forwarding letter for that declaration dated 23 shows that as the earlier publication was not properly done the another copy of the said notification was sent for publication. That notification includes the land of the petitioner. Thus there is clear and sufficient evidence on record to show that under Section 6 a declaration was made in respect of the lands acquired by the notification including the land of the petitioner. Therefore there is no substance in this contention. That notification includes the land of the petitioner. Thus there is clear and sufficient evidence on record to show that under Section 6 a declaration was made in respect of the lands acquired by the notification including the land of the petitioner. Therefore there is no substance in this contention. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 9 notices were issued in December 1990 and therefore no Declaration under Section 6 could have been issued thereafter Section 6 provides that when appropriate Government is satisfied that any particular land is needed for a public purpose a declaration shall be made to that effect Sub-section (2) of Section 6 provides that every declaration shall be published in the Official Gazette and two daily newspapers circulating in the locality and the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at the convenient place in the said locality It further provides that last of dates of such publication and the giving of such public notice shall be referred to as date of publication and the declaration In the present case the declaration in the Official Gazette and in the newspaper were before 17th February 1990 and steps under Sections 7 8 and 9 have been taken thereafter Section 7 provides that whenever any land shall be so declared to be needed for a public purpose the appropriate Government shall direct the Collector to take order for acquisition of the land Section 8 provides that the Collector shall thereupon cause the land to be marked out Section 9 provides that the Collector shall then cause the public notice to be given stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation will be made to him It is clear that as soon as there is a declaration under Section 6 steps under Sections 7 8 and 9 can be taken The declaration contemplated under Sections 7 8 and 9 cannot be equated with the last publication of the declaration Every declaration under Section 6 is a declaration whether in Official Gazette daily newspaper or public notice Once there is one of these declarations steps under Sections 7 8 and 9 can be taken The reference to the date of last publication of the declaration is for the purpose of making of the award and providing the deadline for the same Under Section 6 all the thee declarations namely gazette newspapers and public notice in the locality are necessary But the period for making of the award would run only from the date of the last of such publications Rut that would not mean that till then there is no declaration under Section 6 The earlier declarations in the newspapers and the gazette are also declarations under Section 6 and that would enable the authorities under Sections 7 8 and 9 to lake further steps and there is no bar in making the required publication later subjects to the time limit provided in Section 4. The only time limit for making the declaration under Section 6 is provided in Section 4 and the provision made in Section 6 (2) regarding last publication of the declaration is for the purpose of providing the starting point for the period for making the award under Section 11. The provision made in Section 11 with reference to the last date of publication cannot be read into Sections 7 8 and 9 when the Legislature has not provided the same in these sections Therefore the argument that after Section 9 notices have been issued the declaration under Section 6 could not be made eventhough there is time for making and the law required making of that declaration Hence this contention has also no merits and fails ( 6 ) THESE were the only contentions raised by the learned Counsel All of them fail Hence the petition is dismissed Notice discharged No order as to costs (DKM) petition dismissed. .