Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 117 (GUJ)

RAJANGIRI KISHORGIRI GOSWAMI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2009-02-25

K.A.PUJ

body2009
K. A. PUJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india praying for quashing and setting aside the order dated 22. 4. 2007 in re-granting land of Survey No. 3 Paiki of Mota Mava, district: Rajkot admeasuring 6422 sq. mtrs and also order dated 14. 12. 2006 of the revenue Department, State Government in approving the re-grant of the land in question. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned communication dated 29. 3. 2008 issued by special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals ). ( 2 ) THIS Court has issued notice on 25. 9. 2008 and granted ad-interim relief directing the parties to maintain status-quo as regards the land in dispute. While issuing the notice and granting ad-interim relief the court has recorded the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that despite it being a settled legal position, as held by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2703 as well as in a catena of decisions that if land acquired for a public purpose is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired, then it can be utilized for any other public purpose or can be disposed of by way of public auction. The Court has further recorded the submission that, in the present case, the respondent State authority have, in blatant disregard of the law laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court, re-granted the lands in dispute in favour of the respondent no. 3. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioner before the court was that the respondent No. 3 was the original owner of Revenue Survey No. 3 paiki of Village Mota Mava admeasuring 5 acres 14 Gunthas. In the year 1973-74 land admeasuring 6422 sq. mtrs. out of the aforesaid Survey number was acquired by the State Government for widening of the road. The award of acquisition bearing no. 17/72-73 dated 23. 1. 1974 was passed and the compensation towards this acquisition was also paid to the respondent no. 3 and received by him. The Urban Land ceiling Act, 1976 was in force and was applicable to the entire land of Survey No. 3 admeasuring 5 Acres 14 Gunthas. The award of acquisition bearing no. 17/72-73 dated 23. 1. 1974 was passed and the compensation towards this acquisition was also paid to the respondent no. 3 and received by him. The Urban Land ceiling Act, 1976 was in force and was applicable to the entire land of Survey No. 3 admeasuring 5 Acres 14 Gunthas. The respondent No. 3 and his family members had filed Form No. 6 (1) under the Urban land Ceiling Act. The case under the Urban land Ceiling Act was pending. The respondent No. 3 made a representation to the petitioner and his partners that looking to the legal position each adult member of huf of respondent No. 3 could get one unit admeasuring 1500 sq. mtrs. each from the land in question. ( 4 ) THE respondent No. 3 and remaining four adult male members of the respondent no. 3 had entered into five different agreements to sell for each unit admeasuring 1500 sq. mtrs. with the petitioner and his partners on 18. 6. 1997, in which the other Members of the respondent no. 3 signed as confirming parties, which were registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Rajkot. The respondent No. 3 executed an Agreement to Sell in respect of 1500 sq. mtrs. in favour of Shri Chhaganlal t. Kasandra and Jayaben Manvad on 18. 6. 1997. Similarly other agreements to sell were also executed on 18. 6. 1997. In fact, all the purchasers in the aforesaid Agreements to Sell were partners and agreements to sell were executed by different family members of respondent No. 3 only with a view to avoid the rigours of Urban Land Ceiling act. ( 5 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that there was a partnership firm, namely, M/s. Panchratna Developers wherein the present petitioner and one Shri Chhaganlal trikamlal were the partners. The respondent no. 3 and his family members had executed agreement to Develop the land admeasuring 10500 sq. mtrs. of Survey no. 3. The respondent No. 3 at the relevant time represented to the petitioner and his partners that as per provision of Section 21 (1) of the Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 the petitioner was entitled to retain 10500 sq. mtrs. of land for construction of housing society for weaker sections of the society. Accordingly Development agreement was executed, for a consideration at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. mtrs. of land for construction of housing society for weaker sections of the society. Accordingly Development agreement was executed, for a consideration at the rate of Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. By virtue of this Agreement to Sale dated 18. 6. 1997 and the Development agreement, the respondent No. 3 and his family members transferred the entire land bearing Survey No. 3 situated at Mota Mava, district : Rajkot admeasuring 5 Acres 14 gunthas. In the year 1999 the Urban Land ceiling (Repeal) Act came into force whereby the Urban Land Ceiling Act was repealed. Thereafter, another Agreement dated 25. 8. 1999 was entered into between the petitioner and his partners as the purchasers and the parties of the first part and the respondent No. 3 and his family members i. e. sellers and parties of the second part. In this Agreement, reference was made to the earlier Agreements to Sell in respect of 7500 sq. mtrs. and registered with the office of Sub-Registrar, Rajkot and also the Development Agreement in respect of 10500 sq. mtrs. of land. It was mentioned in the agreements that the respondent No. 3 has sold the entire land admeasuring 5 acres 14 Gunthas for a consideration of rs. 98,51,000. The details of entire consideration were also mentioned in the agreement being special agreement with receipt of consideration. No mutation entry was entered in the Revenue Record regarding acquisition of land. The petitioner, therefore, in good faith entered into agreements for Sale with respondent No. 3 for the entire land of Survey No. 3. ( 6 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that because of rise in price of land the respondent No. 3 and his family members and even the partners of the firm of which the petitioner was one of the partners were trying to sell and dispose of the land in collusion with each other without the consent of the petitionerand, therefore, the petitioner had filed Regular Civil Suit no. 661 of 2001 and also prayed for injunction, which is still pending. After filing of the suit the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 3 and his family members have, in collusion with the partners of the partnership firm sold the entire land to different persons after dividing the same into plots. The petitioner had therefore filed Regular Civil Suit no. After filing of the suit the petitioner came to know that the respondent No. 3 and his family members have, in collusion with the partners of the partnership firm sold the entire land to different persons after dividing the same into plots. The petitioner had therefore filed Regular Civil Suit no. 254 of 2001 in the Court of Civil Judge (J. D.), Rajkot for specific performance of agreements to sell as well as declaration and cancellation of sale deeds in favour of different persons alongwith Injunction application Ex. 5 which are pending before the trial Court. ( 7 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 3 had applied to the District development Officer, Rajkot for grant of n. A. Permission for residential purpose in respect of land of Survey No. 3 admeasuring 5 Acres 14 Gunthas. The District development Officer had, vide order dated 7. 3 2001, granted N. A. Permission and approved layout plans. The District development Officer had submitted a report on 7. 9. 2002 to take the aforesaid order in revision. The Revision Application No. Suo-Motu/rjt/5 was registered. The respondent no. 3 in the aforesaid Revision Application also submitted that the land in question was transferred to different persons by registered Sale Deed. The purchasers had also submitted applications for joining as parties. The Special Secretary, Revenue department (Appeals) had found that out of total land, the land admeasuring 0 Hectre -64 Ares - 22 sq. mtrs. have been acquired by the State Government and the compensation has been paid. The said land has been mutated in the name of State Government. The Special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) vide order dated 28. 7. 2008 quashed and set aside the order of District development Officer dated 7. 3. 2001 granting N. A. Permission. The respondent no. 3 as well as the subsequent purchasers had challenged the said order before this court by filing Special Civil application. The said Special Civil application was subsequently withdrawn. ( 8 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that a news item was published in daily newspaper divya Bhaskar' on 15. 7. 2007 that the land admeasuring 6422 sq. mtrs. have been re-granted by the State Government to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner had, thereafter, made inquiries regarding order of re-grant. ( 8 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that a news item was published in daily newspaper divya Bhaskar' on 15. 7. 2007 that the land admeasuring 6422 sq. mtrs. have been re-granted by the State Government to the respondent No. 3. The petitioner had, thereafter, made inquiries regarding order of re-grant. The petitioner at that time came to know that the respondent No. 3 Collector, rajkot vide order dated 22. 4. 2007 had re-granted the land in question to the respondent No. 3 at market price of Rs. 225/ per sq. mtr. In the order itself it is recorded that earlier the respondent No. 3 had applied for re-grant of land in question but as the development of Kalawad Road was not completed the same was not granted and the application was rejected by order dated 29. 11. 1995. The Revenue Department, State of Gujarat vide order dated 14. 12. 2006 approved re-grant of the land in question in favour of the respondent No. 3. The revenue Department, State of Gujarat had approved re-grant of land at a market price of Rs. 225/- per sq. mtr. and further it was directed that the land should be re-granted only to the person who was the original owner at the time of acquisition after verifying that there are no other right holders. The land admesuring 570 sq. mtrs. was opined to be continued to be held by the State Government and the remaining land admeasuring 5852 sq. mtrs. was re-granted to the respondent No. 3 at the rate of rs. 225/- per sq. mtr. , on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order of the collector. The respondent No. 2 - Collector, rajkot had, vide order dated 22. 4. 2007, re-granted the land admeasuring 5852 sq. mtrs of Survey No. 3 of Mota Mava, District : rajkot to the respondent No. 3 at a market price of Rs. 225/- per sq. mtr. The petitioner on coming to know about the order passed by the Collector, Rajkot preferred Revision application before Special Secretary, revenue Department (Appeals ). The Special secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals)vide communication dated 27. 3. mtrs of Survey No. 3 of Mota Mava, District : rajkot to the respondent No. 3 at a market price of Rs. 225/- per sq. mtr. The petitioner on coming to know about the order passed by the Collector, Rajkot preferred Revision application before Special Secretary, revenue Department (Appeals ). The Special secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals)vide communication dated 27. 3. 2008 informed the petitioner that since the collector has passed the order pursuant to the approval of Revenue Department of the state Government, the decision of the collector can be said to be decision of the state Government and, therefore, the special Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) has no powers or jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or revision. The Special secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals)informed the petitioner that the Revision application is not maintainable and, therefore, returned the memo of Revision application. Being aggrieved by the said orders of the Collector as well as Special secretary, Revenue Department, the petitioner has filed the present petition before this Court. ( 9 ) MR. Ashish H. Shah, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the order of the Special Secretary, revenue Department (Appeals) is ex-facie violative of principles of natural justice in asmuch as the authority had returned the memo of Revision Application alongwith the annexures without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, is liable to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that the impugned order passed by the Collector, rajkot of re-grant of the land to the respondent No. 3 is contrary to the settled legal position and contrary to the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. M. Bhaskaran Pillai, reported in AIR 1997 SC 2703 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, if the land acquired for public purpose is not utilized for the purpose for which it was acquired then it can be utilized for any other public purpose or can be disposed of by way of public auction. The respondent -State Authorities have no power or authority to re-grant the land in question to the respondent No. 3 without holding public auction. He has further submitted that the collector, Rajkot has erred in re-granting the land in question at a throw away price. The Collector, Rajkot has re-granted the land in question at a market price of rs. 225/- per sq. He has further submitted that the collector, Rajkot has erred in re-granting the land in question at a throw away price. The Collector, Rajkot has re-granted the land in question at a market price of rs. 225/- per sq. mtr. The Jantri of the land in question is Rs. 1,600/- per sq. mtr. in case of agricultural land and Rs. 4,000/- in case of non-agricultural land. Earlier the land in question was converted into non-agricultural land, however the order of the district Development Officer, Rajkot granting N. A. Permission was taken into suo-motu revision by the Special Secretary, revenue Department (Appeals) and was quashed and set aside. Considering these facts, Mr. Shah has submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to purchase the landin question at the price of the Jantri or at the rate of Rs. 2,000/- per sq. mtr. He has further submitted that proper course open to the respondent - State Authorities was to auction the land in question and, therefore, the order of the Collector, Rajkot as well as the order of the Revenue department, State of Gujarat is liable to be quashed and set aside. ( 10 ) MR. Shah further submitted that the collector has passed an order of re-grant of land without making due inquiry regarding the position of the acquired land. The respondent - State Authorities have not followed the procedure required to be followed for re-grant of the land and, therefore, the impugned order of the collector, Rajkot is liable to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that the state Government while granting approval for re-grant of land has specifically observed that the re-grant should be made only to the original land owner from whom the land was acquired after verifying whether there are other right holders in the land in question. He has further submitted that the respondent No. 3 has misrepresented to the Collector as well as the State government for re-grant of the land. The respondent No. 3 has, in fact, sold the entire land of Survey No. 3 Paiki admeasuring 5 acres 14 Gunthas to the petitioner and his partners by way of Agreement to Sell way back in the year 1997. The respondent No. 3, thereafter, had again transferred the entire land of Survey No. 3 Paiki 5 Acres 14 gunthas by registered Sale Deed in favour of different persons. The respondent No. 3, thereafter, had again transferred the entire land of Survey No. 3 Paiki 5 Acres 14 gunthas by registered Sale Deed in favour of different persons. The land in question could not have been re-granted to the respondent No. 3 in view of the creation of rights of other persons in the land in question. Mr. Shah has further submitted that the respondent No. 3 has not stated correct facts regarding re-grant of the land. He has not disclosed true, correct and material facts to the authorities. He has not disclosed the fact that the entire land of survey No. 3 Paiki admeasuring 5 Acres 14 gunthas have been sold and disposed of initially in the year 1997 by way of agreement to Sell in favour of the petitioner and his partners and, thereafter, the aforesaid land is again sold by registered Sale Deed in favour of different persons in the year 2001. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders of the Collector as well as State Government are liable to be quashed and set aside. ( 11 ) MR. Shah has further submitted that the order of re-grant of acquired land is not as per market value. The land worth crores of rupees have been sold away at a throw away price. He has, therefore, submitted that both the orders under challenge are required to be quashed and set aside. ( 12 ) AN affidavit-in-reply is filed by the mamlatdar, Rajkot (Rural) on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Based on this affidavit, the learned Assistant Government pleader appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the petitioner has challenged the order of re-grant passed by the Collector, Rajkot after obtaining necessary approval from the State government in favour of the respondent no. 3 and, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order passed in favour of the respondent No. 3. The land in question was acquired for widening of the rajkot Kalavad Road. The respondent No. 3 was owner of the said land and, therefore, the authority has passed an order of re-grant in favour of respondent No. 3 and the authority has not utilized the land for the purpose for which it was acquired. Initially the authority has passed interim order as per prevailing bye-laws of the State. The respondent No. 3 was owner of the said land and, therefore, the authority has passed an order of re-grant in favour of respondent No. 3 and the authority has not utilized the land for the purpose for which it was acquired. Initially the authority has passed interim order as per prevailing bye-laws of the State. Government and the same was in consonance with the provisions of law and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 13 ) HE has further submitted that the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable on the ground of involvement of trifle issues. He has further submitted that the petitioner is trying to convert Civil Suit into the petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India. The petitioner has tried to ventilate his personal disputes with the respondent No. 3. The Court, therefore, should not interfere, more particularly when the disputed question of facts are involved. He has further submitted that on 29. 6. 1972 the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued for process of acquisition of the land in question for widening Rajkot Kalavad road. On 12. 9. 1972, Notification under section 6 was issued. On 29. 12. 1973 the award under Section 11 was passed by the land Acquisition Officer. It is, therefore, submitted that the authority has scrupulously followed all the procedures as contemplated under the Land Acquisition act before acquiring the land in question. On 14. 11. 2002, entry with respect to the above referred acquisition was posted in the revenue record being Entry No. 2235. As per the provision of para 328 of the Land acquisition Manual, criteria for disposal of acquired land is prescribed and the priority is also mentioned in para 328 of Manual. The original owner of the land is entitled at priority in the event of re-grant of such land. It is true that the respondent No. 3 had filed an application for re-grant of land in question on 30. 4. 2004. This fact shows that the land was not put to use for the purpose for which the same was acquired. Pursuant to the application of respondent No. 3, the collector has asked for opinion from the public Works Department as well as from the land Acquisition Officer. 4. 2004. This fact shows that the land was not put to use for the purpose for which the same was acquired. Pursuant to the application of respondent No. 3, the collector has asked for opinion from the public Works Department as well as from the land Acquisition Officer. After obtaining necessary opinion from the concerned department and after inquiring into the facts that whether the land under reference is put to use for the purpose for which it was acquired or not ?the matter was put before the District Land Valuation committee for ascertaining the market price of the land in question. In the meeting held on 30. 5. 2005 the District Land Valuation committee has decided the market value of the land in question. After considering all relevant aspects as well as sales instances of last five years of nearby area and thereby decided the market value @ Rs. 225/- per sq. mtr. for the land in question. The collector has also obtained a report from the Talati with respect to yearly income of the respondent No. 3 and the case of the respondent No. 3 was falling within the criteria prescribed under para 328 of the land Acquisition Act Manual. The authority has also obtained undertaking from the respondent No. 3 to the effect that the respondent No. 3 will pay the market value which will be determined by the authority. ( 14 ) IT is further submitted that after completion of necessary procedure and formalities on 29. 8. 2006 the Collector has moved the file of proposal to the Revenue department. On bare perusal of the said proposal it would become clear that the collector has considered all the relevant aspects and ultimately opined that the land can be re-granted in favour of the respondent No. 3, since he was falling within the prescribed criteria of regrant. The respondent No. 3 was the original owner of the land in question and, therefore, at the time of re-grant, natural right and priority is to be given. The State government has considered proposal made by the Collector and ultimately vide communication dated 14. 12. 2006 the State government has given final approval with certain conditions. A communication dated 14. 12. 2006 is already on record. Pursuant to the order dated 22. 8. 2007, on 22. 9. 2007 entry in Village Form No. 6 was mutated. The State government has considered proposal made by the Collector and ultimately vide communication dated 14. 12. 2006 the State government has given final approval with certain conditions. A communication dated 14. 12. 2006 is already on record. Pursuant to the order dated 22. 8. 2007, on 22. 9. 2007 entry in Village Form No. 6 was mutated. On bare perusal of the last column of Entry no. 4781, it would suggest that the petitioner was very well aware about the proceeding. However, the petitioner has filed the present petition in September, 2008, whereas, the revenue entry is of september, 2007 and, therefore, the present petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay also. ( 15 ) MR. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior counsel appearing with Mr. Vimal M. Patel, for the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the petition in asmuch as the petitioner by way of this petition wants to settle the personal disputes between the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 in respect of which Regular Civil Suit No. 661 of 2001 was instituted which is pending for adjudication before the Civil Court at rajkot. In the said Civil Suit the petitioner had filed an injunction application, which was not pressed and accordingly the application was disposed of vide order dated 25. 6. 2007. The petitioner has not produced the copy of the said order and suppressed material fact. Over and above this, the petitioner has also filed Regular Civil Suit no. 254 of 2001 for specific performance of the alleged agreement which is pending for adjudication before the Civil Court at rajkot wherein also no injunction has been granted by the Civil Court. Mr. Joshi, therefore, submitted that the petitioner should not have any objection to the regrant of the land in question because if the said suit is allowed the petitioner would also be entitled to the land which has been granted to the respondent No. 3. However, the petitioner under the guise of the present proceedings wants to pressurise the respondent No. 3 to sell the land to the petitioner and/or settle the same as per the terms of the petitioner. ( 16 ) MR. However, the petitioner under the guise of the present proceedings wants to pressurise the respondent No. 3 to sell the land to the petitioner and/or settle the same as per the terms of the petitioner. ( 16 ) MR. JOSHI has further submitted that the respondent No. 3 is the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 3 Paiki admeasuring 5 acres 14 Gunthas situated at Village Mota mava, Taluka : Rajkot, District : Rajkot. In the year 1972 a small portion of the area was acquired under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act, 1894 for construction of State highway. In view of the map prepared by the District Inspector Land record on 11. 5. 1993 it was noticed that no road is passing through the said land and further the said land is situated 15 mtrs. inside from the center. No possession of the said land was ever taken from the respondent No. 3. Therefore, the District inspector Land Record vide letter dated 12. 7. 1993 informed the Land Acquisition. Officer to take steps for modification of an award. Again the land was measured on 18. 9. 1993 and it was found that the alleged land acquired is 15 mtrs. inside from the road center. In view of this fact, the Deputy executive Engineer vide letter dated 12. 10. 1993 informed the Executive engineer that the land should be given to the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, vide letter dated 6. 1. 1994 the Executive Engineer wrote to the Land Acquisition Officer to take necessary steps in respect of the said land. The said land, therefore, was never required and since inception the possession was never taken from the petitioner under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 1894. The four lane road has been fully constructed without usage of the said land. Since the possession of the said land was never taken and the acquisition proceedings as such were abandoned and the land was never required for the purpose for which it was sought to be acquired or for any other purpose, the respondent No. 1 had made an application for conversion of his self acquired property, including the said land to be used for non-agricultural purpose. The said application was allowed vide order dated 7. 3. 2001 passed by the district Development Officer, Rajkot which was set aside vide order dated 10. 9. The said application was allowed vide order dated 7. 3. 2001 passed by the district Development Officer, Rajkot which was set aside vide order dated 10. 9. 2003 passed by the Secretary (Appeals ). Under the circumstances the said land remained to be the agricultural land. ( 17 ) MR. JOSHI has further submitted that in the meantime a Circular dated 31. 8. 2001 was issued by the respondent No. 1 framing policy for grant of the land under para 328 of the Land Acquisition Manual. Since the possession of the land was never taken from the respondent No. 3 and considering the said Circular, the respondent No. 3 made an application dated 2. 1. 2004 for re-grant of the land in view of the letter dated 12. 7. 1993 written by the District Inspector land Record. Upon inquiry by the District collector,the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 21. 1. 2004 informed that the said land was jointly measured by DILR and it is found that the said land is situated outside the road line. As per the policy, the procedure has been followed, necessary panch Rojkam has been undertaken, opinion is sought that the land is not required for any other purpose and the market value has been determined by the District Land valuation Committee which is more then the value determined by Jantri published by the respondent No. 1. Mr. Joshi denied that the Jantri of the land in case of agricultural land is Rs. 1,600/- per sq. mtr. Further on making an inquiry regarding the possession, it was informed by the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 9. 6. 2006 that the award is published on 29. 12. 1973 and the compensation has been paid, therefore it can be said that the possession of the land has been taken by the Department. The respondent No. 3 has claimed possession of the land from the inception which fact is evident from the Village Form No. 7/12 and at no point of time the possession was taken under the provisions of the Land acquisition Act, 1894. He has, therefore, submitted that after inquiring all the aspects the respondent No. 2 gave a report dated 29. 8. 2006 in detail to the respondent no. l. On considering the facts and circumstances, the respondent No. 1 has vide order dated 14. 12. He has, therefore, submitted that after inquiring all the aspects the respondent No. 2 gave a report dated 29. 8. 2006 in detail to the respondent no. l. On considering the facts and circumstances, the respondent No. 1 has vide order dated 14. 12. 2006 thought it fit to re-grant the land to the original owner i. e. respondent No. 3 and have accepted an amount of Rs. 14,74,704/ -. An entry to that effect has been mutated in the revenue record vide Entry No. 4781 dated 27. 9. 2007 which was objected by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the present petition is filed after almost one year and suffers from delay and latches and, therefore, should not be entertained on this ground only. ( 18 ) MR. Joshi has lastly submitted that it is an admitted fact that the possession of the land was never taken from the respondent No. 3 under the provisions of the land Acquisition Act and, therefore, even under Section 48 of the said Act, the respondent No. 1 has liberty to withdraw from the acquisition of the said land. He has, therefore, submitted that the land has been re-granted to the respondent No. 3 on payment of the market value determined by the District Land Valuation Committee. The respondent No. l has rightly exercised the discretion in disposing of the said land considering the extraordinary circumstances. In any case, the land has clearly been subjected to the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by mistake and it is necessary to remedy the same. The order of re-grant was not strictly necessary at all in this case since the land ought to have been released by the respondent by withdrawal from acquisition, instead of which the present action has been undertaken, which is clearly more beneficial to the State. He has, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine. Alterntively Mr. Joshi has submitted that if the Court is not inclined to accept submission of respondent No. 3 that instead of re-grant of land to the petitioner they should have been returned to the respondent no. 3 being the original owner of the land and in case the Court takes the view that the land re-granted to the respondent No. 3 at the value of Rs. 225/- per sq. mtr. 3 being the original owner of the land and in case the Court takes the view that the land re-granted to the respondent No. 3 at the value of Rs. 225/- per sq. mtr. is not as per the prevailing market rate in that case, the respondent No. 3 is prepared to pay the balance price that may be determined by this Court. He has, therefore, submitted that while deciding this matter, the Court may issue suitable direction for making payment to the State authority. ( 19 ) HAVING heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and having considered their rival submissions as contained in the memo of petition as well as the affidavit-in-reply and rejoinder-affidavit and having also gone through the orders passed by the authorities from time to time and the documents produced before the court, the Court is of the view that the petitioner has no locus standi to approach this Court and challenge the decision of the revenue authorities. Even if it is assumed that the petitioner has any interest in the property in question, the petitioner has already filed two Civil Suits before the civil Court which are pending. The Civil suits were filed way back in 2001. Interim injunction was not granted. Instead of pursuing the said Civil Suit the petitioner has filed the present petition before this court only with a view to settle his personal dispute with the respondent No. 3. Once having approached the Civil Court for redressal of his dispute and such Civil Suit is pending, there is no question of entertaining this petition at the behest of the petitioner. The petition therefore deserves to be dismissed on this short ground. However, during the course of submissions and pleadings of the parties certain facts having come to know to the notice of the Court, the court cannot ignore those facts. It is true that there is a settled legal position that once having acquired the land for a public purpose and if that land is not required for that public purpose or any other public purpose in that case the land is not required to be given back to the land owner but it should be sold through public auction. In the case of State of Kerala Vs. In the case of State of Kerala Vs. M. Bhaskaran pillai (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down this proposition holding that if the land is acquired for public purpose after the purpose was achieved the use of the land can be changed for any other public purpose. In case, there is no other public purpose for which the land is needed, the instead of disposal by way of sale to the erstwhile owner, the land should be put to public auction and the amount fetched in the public auction can be better utilized for the public purpose envisaged in the directive principles of the constitution. Thus, apparently it appears that the authorities have committed some mistake in re-granting land to the respondent No. 3, the original owner without following the due procedure of law. However, the factual scenario in the present case is quite different. It is precisely the case of the respondent No. 3 that under some mistaken belief the land was said to have been acquired. As such the said land was not required for the purpose of widening of the road. Though Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land acquisition Act were issued and amount of compensation was also determined and paid, however way back in 1993-94 it was decided that the land was not required and a proposal was also forwarded to the executive Engineer that the amount should be given back to the respondent No. 3. If the land is acquired under the mistaken belief and ultimately it is decided that it is not required for the public purpose and if it is given back then it would be a case of return of land and not re-grant of land. When a question of return of land is involved there is no need to follow the procedure laid down under the Act. In any case, return of the land should not be at the throw away price. Admittedly at the time when the land was acquired by the State government, though under the mistaken belief, compensation was paid to the respondent No. 3 and hence when the decision is taken to return or re-grant the land, a proper amount should be collected from the respondent No. 3. Admittedly at the time when the land was acquired by the State government, though under the mistaken belief, compensation was paid to the respondent No. 3 and hence when the decision is taken to return or re-grant the land, a proper amount should be collected from the respondent No. 3. Though apparently it appears that the authorities have followed the due procedure for determining the fair market price of the agricultural land at Rs. 225/- per sq. mtr. , however that should not be considered to be a fair market value looking to the natural location, development in the surrounding area and all other relevant factors. At the same time, the value should also not be determined on the basis of the same being non-agricultural, as admittedly N. A. Permission was granted and it was subsequently cancelled. Neither the property can be put to sell nor the offer of the petitioner can be accepted as the respondent No. 3 is lawfully entitled to claim this land back. ( 20 ) CONSIDERING all the aspects of the matter and since the respondent No. 3 has agreed to pay the price that may be determined by this Court, it is just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case to determine such value at Rs. 1000/- per sq. mtr. Since the petitioner has already paid Rs. 225/- per sq. mtr. , the balance amount at the rate of rs. 775/- per sq. mtr. is required to be paid by the respondent No. 3 to the State authorities. The amount so determined should be paid within four months in four monthly equal installments and on payment of the first installment i. e. 25% of Rs. 775/- per sq. mtr. , the order of status-quo passed by this Court earlier stands vacated. At the time of making payment of first installment, the respondent No. 3 should also file an undertaking before this Court that the amount so directed by this Court shall be paid within four months in four monthly equal installments and if any default is committed in making such payment, the land is required to be returned to the State government and the amount paid shall stands forfeited and the stay lifted by this court will again be reimposed. ( 21 ) SUBJECT to the aforesaid directions and observations this petition is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs. (Order as to costs)