ORDER : VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. We have heard Shri A.V. Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Krutik Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State-respondent. 2. By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "11(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the Respondents to acquire the excess land used by them for the construction of canal i.e. land bearing Survey No. 642/2 admeasuring 0-19-43 sq. mtrs., situated at Village Maktupur, Taluka: Unjha, District: Mehsana and pass award as per the New Act by taking into consideration the market value determined by this Hon'ble court for the same village with interest from the year 2002 and to pay 75% of the amount of compensation in advance as per the New Act by issuing suit writ, order or direction in the interest of justice; (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant any further relief, which may deemed fit, in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Shri Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, states that he has received instructions, but would like to file counter affidavit placing on record the relevant material, for which he prays for reasonable time. 4. On the other hand, Shri Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that this matter is pending since the year 2017, in which notices were issued on 28.12.2017 and thereafter, further time was granted on 23.07.2018 and 06.08.2019 to the learned Assistant Government Pleader, but no affidavit having been filed, no further time may be granted. 5. The facts, relevant for consideration are that Survey No. 624/2, admeasuring 3150 sq. mtrs., is the land belonging to the petitioner, situated in Village; Maktupur, Taluka: Unjha, District: Mehsana. Out of the said plot, 108 sq. mtrs., were acquired for construction of 'Sujalam Suflam Spreading Canal Yojna' for District; Mehsana for which Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "1894 Act") was issued on 04.07.2002 and Notification under Section 6 of 1894 Act for the same area was issued on 31.10.2002. An award was also given, determining compensation for 108 sq. mtrs. An award was also given, determining compensation for 108 sq. mtrs. We have also been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that enhancement proceedings by way of Reference under Section 18 of 1894 Act has also been decided by the Court and an amount has been enhanced, which has been accepted and paid to the petitioner. In so far as 108 sq., mtrs., of the above survey number is concerned, there is no issue. 6. The dispute arose as according to the petitioner, while construction of canal, the constructing agency utilized additional 1943 sq. mtrs., of land of the petitioner, over and above what was acquired i.e. 108 sq. mtrs. In this respect, the petitioner claims to have made dozen of representations to the authorities, right from January, 2008. It is further the case of the petitioner that the Executive Engineer, Canal Division, dealing with the project submitted a proposal dated 15.09.2012, to the concerned Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Palanpur, whereby, it was submitted that in addition to 108 sq. mtrs., of the above survey number having been acquired, the department has utilized 1020 sq. mtrs., of additional land of the said survey number and, therefore, appropriate proceedings for acquisition or for purchasing the same from the petitioner may be initiated. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, after the said proposal was sent on 15.09.2012, a copy of which is filed at Annexure-D, nothing moved further. The petitioner again made representations, but of no avail and they fell on deaf ears, compelling, present Special Civil Application has been filed for the reliefs claimed for. 7. Shri Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader upon instructions has informed that the proposal of the Executive Engineer dated 15.09.2012 is on record. However, he has no further instructions as to what steps were taken on the said proposal. He also submits that the petitioner would be entitled to appropriate compensation in accordance with law for the additional land admeasuring 1020 sq. mtrs., utilized by the Canal Division, but when such compensation would be paid, he is not in a position to make a statement today and requires some time to obtain the instructions. He also submits that the contention of the petitioner that 1943 sq. mtrs., of additional land has been utilized is not correct and it is only 1020 sq. mtrs., of land which has been additionally utilized. He also submits that the contention of the petitioner that 1943 sq. mtrs., of additional land has been utilized is not correct and it is only 1020 sq. mtrs., of land which has been additionally utilized. 8. Having considered the aforesaid facts, what we noticed is lethargic attitude of the state authorities. In first place, they could not have utilized even an inch of additional land than what was actually acquired and if for requiring any additional land, then immediate steps ought to have been taken to acquire the same under the relevant provisions of law and not by way of taking forcible possession. The land as has been utilized admittedly, admeasuring 1020 sq. mtrs., from 02.04.2008, but despite 11 years having been passed, there is nothing on record as of now to show what steps were taken to lawfully acquire the land. 9. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we grant Shri Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader 15 days' time to file a detailed affidavit. Further, we also provide that in the meantime, the compensation, due and payable to the petitioner for 1020 sq. mtrs., of land is paid to the petitioner by way of either mutual settlement with the petitioner or without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and at the rate determined by the Court under Section 18 of the reference proceedings with respect to 108 sq. mtrs., and such payment be also incorporated in the affidavit filed by the concerned Deputy Collector, and the Engineer of the project, failing which, the concerned Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, as also the Superintending Engineer of the Canal Yojna concerned, shall remain present before this Court on the next date. List this matter on 14.11.2019. A copy of this order be provided to Shri Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader, free of cost for necessary compliance, within a period of three days. On the next date, the Court will consider how to compensate the petitioner for the loss suffered and would compare for the losses to be made good to the petitioner.