Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 305 (GUJ)

Zala Mohbatsinh Umedsinh v. State of Gujarat

2016-02-09

AKIL KURESHI, Z.K SAIYED

body2016
ORDER : Akil Kureshi, J. Petitioners have challenged an order dated 16.01.2015 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, under which the petitioners' application dated 12.09.2014 for making reference for apportionment of compensation under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be dismissed. 2. Brief facts are as under:- 2.1 The Government acquired various parcels of lands of village Dhudhrej, one of them being revenue survey No. 339, admeasuring 2 acres and 27 gunthas. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act for such purpose was issued on 04.10.1998 After completing other formalities, award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 03.07.2001 The respondents Nos. 3 to 5, whose names were shown in the revenue records and had participated in such land acquisition proceedings, sought reference to the District Court regarding the compensation. Such reference was partially allowed and disposed of by award dated 29.01.2012 2.2 Pending such reference proceedings, petitioners moved Misc. Civil Application No. 42 of 2012 and prayed for joining as party in such proceedings and for being paid 50% of the compensation. Though the reference was disposed of, such application is still pending. At that stage, the petitioners moved application on 12.09.2014 and requested for making reference under Section 30 of the Act. Such application came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 16.01.2015, in which the authority observed that the award was passed in favour of the private respondents herein on the basis of their names appearing in the revenue records. The petitioners had not raised any objection at any stage of the acquisition proceedings. Even when the compensation was paid under the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, petitioners raised no objection. Reference Court has also disposed of the reference proceedings. 3. Learned Counsel Shri Gateshaniya for the petitioners vehemently contended that the approach adopted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is wholly incorrect. Section 30 of the Act does not envisage any time limit where application for reference can be made. As soon as dispute for apportionment is raised, the Collector has to make a reference and cannot decide such dispute on merits. In this context, he relied on following decisions:- I. In case of Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple Singiridudi v.Union of India, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 408 . II. In case of Sri Prasada Rao Mikkilineni v. State of A.P, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 371 . III. In this context, he relied on following decisions:- I. In case of Arulmighu Lakshminarasimhaswamy Temple Singiridudi v.Union of India, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 408 . II. In case of Sri Prasada Rao Mikkilineni v. State of A.P, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 371 . III. In case of Govindbhai Ambalal Patel v. State of Gujarat, reported in1995 (1) GLH, page No. 21. IV. Judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 18.06.2013 in SCA No. 2522 of 2013 in case of Hasumatiben Mohanlal Thaker v.State of Gujarat 4. On the other hand, Counsel for the private respondents submitted that the petitioners have already moved an application before the reference Court, which is pending. They, therefore, cannot proceed in two simultaneous proceedings. The names of the petitioners or their predecessors never appeared in the revenue records when the application proceedings commenced. They nave no right to compensation. 5. Learned AGP Shri Dhavan Jayswal submitted that the names of the petitioners nowhere appeared in the revenue records as owners and occupants when the land acquisition proceedings were initiated and completed. They have not shown even prima facie any right, title and interest in the land. 6. We are conscious that Section 30 of the Act pertains to a reference to be made when the amount of compensation has been settled under Section 11 and dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same. In that context, the Collector does not have adjudicative power to decide the disputes inter-parte. The judgments cited by the Counsel for the petitioners would also suggest that such application may be made even after the award of the reference Court. Nevertheless, the facts of the present case are glaring. As noted, the petitioners' names never appeared in the revenue records at any point of time from the starting of the land acquisition proceedings. They did not raise any objection regarding acquisition or compensation nor sought reference before the Reference Court. The Reference Court also disposed of the reference in the year 2012. Two years later, they moved an application before the Land Acquisition Officer seeking reference under Section 30 of the Act. They have not even shown semblance of connection with the acquired land. Merely stating that many years earlier, name of the father of the petitioners had appeared in the revenue records, would not be sufficient. I facts of the case, therefore, this petition is dismissed. They have not even shown semblance of connection with the acquired land. Merely stating that many years earlier, name of the father of the petitioners had appeared in the revenue records, would not be sufficient. I facts of the case, therefore, this petition is dismissed. 7. Nothing stated in the order, however, would prevent the petitioners from filing Civil Suit, establish their right, title and interest and consequently, part of the compensation paid by the Government as long as they withdraw the application before the Reference Court before filing such suit. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of the rival contentions.