JUDGMENT : VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 has been filed by Maganbhai Valjibhai Patel and Others impleading the National Highway Authority of India (R/1), Competent Authority and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vadodara (R/2) and Union of India (R/3), praying for the following reliefs: “(a) To admit and allow this petition. (b) To hold and declare that the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners being Survey No. 161/2/B, of village Sherkhi, Taluka and District Vadodara admeasuring 9427 sq. meters of Block No. 363, without the same having been notified in the Official Gazette for the purpose of acquisition of Vadodara Mumbai Express Highway, as being arbitrary, illegal, unjustified and in serious violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. (c) To direct the respondents authorities to forthwith handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the land of the petitioners being Survey No. 161/2/B, of village Sherkhi, Taluka and District Vadodara admeasuring 9427 sq. meters of Block No. 363 by de-acquiring the same. (d) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to maintain status quo in relation to land of the petitioners being Survey No. 161/2/B of village Sherkhi, Taluka and District Vadodara admeasuring 9427 sq. meters of Block No. 363. (e) Pass any such other and/or further orders that may be thought just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.” 2. In brief, the claim of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 is that survey No. 161/2/B of Block No. 363 of village Sherkhi, Taluka and District Vadodara, admeasuring 9427 sq. mtrs. is recorded in their names as owners and in possession in the village form 7/12 since the time the petitioners purchased the said land by way of registered sale deed dated 28th November,1996. The said survey number came to be mutated in the revenue records vide mutation entry No. 7778. 3. In the year 2014, certain land of Block No. 363 was acquired for the National Highway Authority of India ("NHAI" for short). However, the notifications did not include survey No. 161/2/B, but despite the same, the land of the said survey number has since been taken possession of and utilized by the NHAI. 3. In the year 2014, certain land of Block No. 363 was acquired for the National Highway Authority of India ("NHAI" for short). However, the notifications did not include survey No. 161/2/B, but despite the same, the land of the said survey number has since been taken possession of and utilized by the NHAI. Thus, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 have been deprived of their valuable property without acquisition and without being compensated. 4. Initially, notices were issued by order dated 6th March, 2019, in brief, recording the above submission fixing 3rd April, 2019. The said order is reproduced below: “Heard Mr. A.B. Munshi, learned advocate for the petitioners. It is submitted that notification dated 29th December, 2014 issued by the competent authority under section 3A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 for acquiring land does not mention Survey No. 161/2/B owned and occupied by the petitioners and representation made by them is not answered. Notice returnable on 3rd April, 2019. Direct service is permitted.” 5. Again on 9th September, 2019, this Court directed the Competent Authority and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vadodara to file his affidavit specifically mentioning whether Block No. 363 is acquired or not. Said order is also reproduced below: “The Competent Authority and Special Land Acquisition Officer, Unit-1, Old Kothi Building, Vadodara is hereby directed to file affidavit stating whether the land bearing block no. 363 of Village sherkhi, Taluka District Vadodara is acquired for the purpose of Vadodara-Mumbai Express Highway or not. Such affidavit shall be filed on or before 27.9.2019. S.O. to 1.10.2019. Direct service is permitted.” 6. The matter was again taken up on 13th November, 2019. This Court again briefly recorded the submissions and required the learned Assistant Government Pleader to obtain instructions. 7. On 14th November, 2019, a detailed order was passed by this court requiring the Collector, Vadodara to get an inquiry conducted. Further, appearance was also put in on behalf of the landowners to whom compensation had been granted with respect to survey No. 161/2/B. We had also required the petitioners to file an affidavit regarding their possession. The matter was adjourned for 9th December, 2019. The said order dated 14th November, 2019 is reproduced below: “Ms. Further, appearance was also put in on behalf of the landowners to whom compensation had been granted with respect to survey No. 161/2/B. We had also required the petitioners to file an affidavit regarding their possession. The matter was adjourned for 9th December, 2019. The said order dated 14th November, 2019 is reproduced below: “Ms. Meghna Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of land owners to whom, according to the State, excess payment of compensation of Survey No. 161/2/B of Block No. 363 area 8884 sq. mts. Amounting to Rs.6, 34,39,134/- has been made. She prays for and is granted a week’s time to file appropriate impleadment application supported by affidavit and all relevant materials as she may deem fit. 2. Shri D.M. Devnani, learned AGP has placed before the Court a chart giving the details of the compensation determined with respect to Block No. 363, an award dated 24.8.2018 and photocopies of revenue maps prepared at different times in relation to acquisition proceedings and also for determination of compensation. They are retained on record with further direction to Shri D.M. Devnani, learned AGP to file an affidavit annexing all these documents. 3. The facts of this case require thorough probe into the manner in which the documents were provided to National Highway Authority of India by the Revenue Department at the time of acquisition proceedings, the determination of compensation, the production of the revenue records and also the payment of compensation to the rightful persons or wrongful persons. Prima facie, the Court is satisfied that there has been some serious mischief on the part of the revenue officials, which needs to be examined. 4. We, accordingly, direct the Collector, District Vadodara, to get a thorough inquiry made on the above issues, and on any other relevant issues which the Collector may deem fit and necessary for finding out the truth, within a period of two weeks and submit a report to this Court and also to remain present before the Court to assist, in case of further queries, which may arise. The Collector may also come prepared with the original record as may be necessary. List this matter on 9th December, 2019. To be taken-up at 2:30 p.m. 4.1 A copy of this order be provided to Shri D.M. Devnani, learned AGP within 24 hours free of costs for further compliance. 5. The Collector may also come prepared with the original record as may be necessary. List this matter on 9th December, 2019. To be taken-up at 2:30 p.m. 4.1 A copy of this order be provided to Shri D.M. Devnani, learned AGP within 24 hours free of costs for further compliance. 5. Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent – National Highway Authority of India and has also provided necessary assistance. Shri Maulik Nanavati, learned counsel may also file affidavit, if necessary, by the next date, on behalf of the National Highway Authority of India. 6. Shri A.B. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioners may file an appropriate affidavit of the petitioners Nos. 2 to 7 making a specific statement that they are not in possession of any part of Block No. 363, either before or at present, except Survey No. 161/2/B admeasuring 9427 sq. mts. of land part of which has since been taken over/utilized by the National Highway Authority of India.” 8. In the meantime, an application for impleadment (Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019) was filed by Girishchandra Mahendraprasad Pathak for being joined as party respondent in Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 also filed the affidavit as required vide order dated 14th November, 2019. 9. Further, Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 was also filed by the legal heirs of one Dipakkumar Mahendraprasad Pathak and 6 others, praying for quashing the order dated 24th October, 2019 and also the notices dated 24th September, 2019 and 1st January, 2019 by which, the petitioners therein were required to refund the excess amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,34,39,134/- which had been paid in excess to them. The reliefs as claimed in Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 are reproduced hereinafter: “(a) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue notice/rule and admit the present petition. (b) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or any other writ of such nature, and please to quash and set aside impugned order dated 22.10.2019 (Ann-O) passed by Respondent No. 3, Special Land Acquisition Officer, in consequence, to the unlawful notices dated 24.09.2019 (Ann-N) and dated 01.01.2019 (Ann-M). (b) Your Lordship may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus and/or any other writ of such nature, and please to quash and set aside impugned order dated 22.10.2019 (Ann-O) passed by Respondent No. 3, Special Land Acquisition Officer, in consequence, to the unlawful notices dated 24.09.2019 (Ann-N) and dated 01.01.2019 (Ann-M). (c) Your Lordship during pendency and final disposal of the present petition may be please to stay further operation, implementation and execution of impugned order dated 22.10.2019 (Ann-O) passed by Respondent No. 3, Special Land Acquisition Officer, in consequence, to the unlawful notices dated 24.09.2019 (Ann-N) and dated 01.01.2019 (Ann-M). (d) Please to issue any other appropriate writ, direction, order in the interest of justice in favour of petitioners.” 10. Both these petitions were taken up together and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, both the matters have been finally heard. Since the detailed version of both the sides, i.e. private respondents is available in the two petitions and the stand of the State is also available by way of report of the Collector, Vadodara and the records made available by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, no purpose was to be served by inviting counter affidavits. 11. We have heard Shri Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.B. Munshi, learned counsel for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019, Shri N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Meghna Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 as also in Civil Application No. 1 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019, Shri D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondent in both the matters and Shri Abhishek Sharma, learned advocate for Nanavaty and Co. for the respondent National Highway Authority of India in both the petitions. 12. Shri Percy Kavina, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners in Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 submitted that survey No. 161/2/B of Block No. 363 admeasuring 9427 was purchased by these petitioners by sale deed of 1996 and thereafter their names came to be recorded in the revenue records and continued as such even till date. The said survey No. 161/2/B was not mentioned in the notifications for acquisition, but despite the same, possession of the land admeasuring 8784 sq. mtrs. The said survey No. 161/2/B was not mentioned in the notifications for acquisition, but despite the same, possession of the land admeasuring 8784 sq. mtrs. of the said survey No. 161/2/B has been taken over by the NHAI and used for construction of National Highway. 13. Shri Kavina further submitted that neither any compensation had been paid to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 nor at any stage any negotiations for purchase of the same were initiated by either the State authorities or the NHAI. 14. It is also the case of Shri Kavina that the compensation of the land acquired from survey No. 161/2/B has been paid to the writ-petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019. Petitioners of the said petition have illegally and wrongfully accepted the compensation of survey No. 161/2/B, although they were neither owners nor in possession of the said survey number. 15. Shri Kavina also submitted that in the entire exercise, there is collusion of the State authorities with the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019. 16. Shri Kavina further submitted referring to the various documents on record that even if total area of the survey numbers of Block No. 363 owned by the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 is taken into consideration, it comes to approximately 10,029 sq. mtrs. The same would not be equal to the area of the land for which the compensation has been paid to them, which is about 18,861 sq. mtrs approximately. According to Shri Kavina, they had in fact, received the compensation not only of their land acquired but also of the land of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019, approximately 8784 sq. mtrs. of survey No. 161/2/B. Reliance in this respect is placed on the report submitted by Collector. It is also submitted that as per the sale deed of survey No. 161/2/A in favour of petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019, the total area purchased was 3136 sq. mtrs whereas in the award the area for which compensation of survey No. 161/2/A is paid is shown to be 8502 sq. mtrs. This clearly shows, according to Shri Kavina how excess compensation is paid to the said petitioners. 17. On the other hand, Shri N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. mtrs whereas in the award the area for which compensation of survey No. 161/2/A is paid is shown to be 8502 sq. mtrs. This clearly shows, according to Shri Kavina how excess compensation is paid to the said petitioners. 17. On the other hand, Shri N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Meghna Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 submitted that the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019, at present, are occupying an equal amount of land as purchased by them in Block No. 363 but at a different place as per the boundaries of their sale deed and which land has not been acquired nor utilized by the NHAI. The petitioners, in effect, want to continue with their possession over an equivalent area as purchased by them in Block No. 363 and at the same time, are now agitating for compensation of the land of Block No. 363 which was in possession of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019, which has since been acquired and utilized by NHAI and compensation for which had been rightly paid to the said petitioners. 18. Mr. Nanavaty, learned Senior Advocate also submitted that on account of some mischief or otherwise of the revenue officials that the map prepared by the District Inspector of Land Records, Vadodara ("DILR" for short) at the time of acquisition of the land of Block No. 363 mentioned Survey No. 161/2/A for being acquired, which is owned and in possession of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019. It is also submitted that apart from survey No. 161/2/A, there were other plots owned by the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019, which were acquired, e.g. survey No. 161/3, survey No. 161/1/A, survey No. 161/1/B and survey No. 161/2/A. All these survey numbers are owned by the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 and they had rightly been paid compensation for their land having been acquired and utilized by the NHAI. 19. According to Shri Nanavaty, Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed and Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 deserves to be allowed and notices deserves to be quashed. 20. 19. According to Shri Nanavaty, Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed and Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 deserves to be allowed and notices deserves to be quashed. 20. Shri Dharmesh M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondent has substantially adopted the arguments of Mr. N.D. Nanavaty. He has, however, made some valued additions in his submissions. According to Shri Devnani, the problem has arisen because of two reasons. Firstly the DILR altered the map which existed at the time of acquisition, in the year 2014. As per the altered map, the location of survey No. 161/2/A and 161/2/B was interchanged. That is to say that earlier where survey No. 161/2/A was shown in the map was now shown in the altered map at the place where survey No. 161/2/B was earlier shown and vice versa. Therefore, the survey numbers of Block No. 363 for acquisition included survey No. 161/2/A in the notifications. Now as per the new altered map survey No. 161/2/B is shown at the location where survey No. 161/2/A was existing and this location has actually been utilised by the NHAI. He further submits that the altered map of 2019 is the correct map and gives the correct location. 21. The second reason according to Shri Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the petitioners of both the petitions were actually in possession of parcel of lands as per the old map existing at the time of acquisition. As such, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019, owners of survey No. 161/2/B are still in possession of an equal area of land purchased by them as the said land is not in possession nor utilised by NHAI. 22. Thus, according to Shri Devnani, the DILR map as it existed at the time of acquisition mentioned the location of survey No. 161/2/B purchased and owned by the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019. However, sometime in 2019, the map prepared by the DILR showed a different location of this survey number. In the new map, the location of survey No. 161/2/B came to be shifted towards south and east and at a place which had been acquired for NHAI. However, sometime in 2019, the map prepared by the DILR showed a different location of this survey number. In the new map, the location of survey No. 161/2/B came to be shifted towards south and east and at a place which had been acquired for NHAI. Taking advantage of this, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 have raised their claim for compensation for possession of the land where it exists in the new DILR map and at the same time, holding on to possession of almost equal area of land of Block No. 363 at a different location which is not utilised by NHAI. 23. Shri Devnani also referred to the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019, according to which, on the north is 30 ft. wide road. Shri Devnani further referred to an old award under the Land Acquisition Act relating to acquisition of the land for the State Highway which fell on the northern side of survey No. 161/2/B. In view of the award, small area of survey No. 161/2/B was acquired and in the award compensation was declared. Further, Shri Devnani also referred to the recital in the sale deed of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 about small part of survey No. 161/2/B going in for acquisition of the State Highway. 24. The above submissions made by the respective counsels draw out a very complex picture and would require thorough verification of records, hearing the parties in detail, the calculation of the land acquired of Block No. 363 and compensation paid to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019. In our considered opinion, this can better be examined at the level of the Collector, Vadodara by examining all the revenue records, the records of the Land Acquisition proceedings after giving due opportunity of filing objections and hearing and also filing material documents, to the respective parties and then taking a final decision as to what course of law should be adopted. Whether it can be thrashed out by the Collector, well and good, otherwise, if it requires to be referred to the civil court under section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Collector, Vadodara would be free to take appropriate decision. 25. Whether it can be thrashed out by the Collector, well and good, otherwise, if it requires to be referred to the civil court under section 3H of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Collector, Vadodara would be free to take appropriate decision. 25. Litigation between the parties should be fair, on equal footing and also at a level playing field. The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 are alleged to have accepted extra and excess compensation for substantial area which did not belong to them. It is for this excess amount that notice for refund has been issued by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. On the other hand, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 are alleged to be still in possession of an equal area of land purchased in 1996 measuring 9427 sq. mtrs but despite the same, are claiming compensation for 8784 sq. mtrs. of land from the total area purchased by them. They want to thus derive double benefit of retaining the total land and also claim compenstion, as alleged by their rivals. 26. Shri Nanavaty, when confronted with the legal position that against the notice, the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 ought to have filed their reply rather than approaching this Court directly against the notice and only after the final decision is taken they should come to this Court, his submission was that the entire proceedings have been initiated on account of filing of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 and various orders passed therein and therefore, this Court may hear his matter. 27. At this stage, a proposal was given to the parties that the writ-petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 would refund the excess compensation as demanded in the notice, impugned in the said petition and which amount may remain with the Collector, Vadodara to be invested in the maximum interest-bearing Fixed Deposits with any Nationalized Bank and subject to final outcome of the proceedings before the Collector/Civil Court, as the case may be, the said amount along with interest would be duly paid to the party found entitled to it and declared to be so entitled. This proposal was accepted by all the parties that upon return of the said money, the matter may be remitted to the Collector, Vadodara for taking appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law as may be directed by this Court. 28. Accordingly, without going into the merits of the matter and without recording any findings on the issues involved and the submissions advanced, we dispose of both the petitions with the following directions:- (i) The petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 would deposit the amount demanded as per the impugned notice with the Collector, Vadodara within a period of 4 weeks from today. (ii) The Collector, Vadodara, upon receipt of the said amount would invest it in a maximum interest-bearing Fixed Deposit with any Nationalized Bank. The said amount along with interest would be paid to the party which ultimately is declared successful. (iii) The return of the said amount would be without prejudice to and subject to the rights of the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 maintaining their claim over the said amount, subject to final outcome of the proceedings before the Collector, Vadodara. (iv) The Collector, Vadodara will proceed to take final decision on the notices issued after receiving the reply of not only the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 22228 of 2019 but would also give an opportunity to the petitioners of Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 of filing their objections and evidences and after examining the records available with the revenue authorities. This exercise may be undertaken and concluded within 4 months. (v) Any observations made in this order would not influence the Collector, Vadodara in taking a final decision as directed above but the same would be an independent decision based upon the material that may be placed by the parties and the revenue department. 29. Since the learned counsel for the applicant in Civil Application (For Joining Party) No. 1 of 2019 in Special Civil Application No. 4103 of 2019 is heard, no orders are required to be passed on this application.