Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1700 (GUJ)

Rameshbhai Chamanbhai Patel v. District Collector

2022-12-06

ASHUTOSH J.SHASTRI

body2022
ORDER : 1. By way of this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of an order dated 20.09.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 - District Collector, Surendranagar in Case No. T.M./G.W.P.V./Case No.1/2017-18 and sought a consequential relief. Relief clause contained in the petition is reproduced hereunder:- "8.(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to admit and allow this petition; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 20.09.2017 passed by respondent no.1- District Collector, Surendranagar, in Case No. T.M/G.W.P.V/Case No. 1/2017-18 and further be pleased to award the compensation a sum of Rs. 4,50,000/- as prayed for by the petitioner in his claim application with appropriate interest which may be paid by respondent nos.2 and 3; (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct respondent nos.2 and 3 to take appropriate steps to remove the stones and baval trees from the land of the petitioner and to make the land in appropriate condition so as the petitioner may be able to utilize the land for agricultural purpose; (D) Such other and further relief that is just, fit and expedient in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted." 2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was holding agricultural land bearing Revenue Survey No.111/P7/P1, admeasuring 0-80-94 (Hec-Are-Sq.Mtrs.), in Village Danavada, Taluka Muli, District Surendranagar. The respondent No.2 had issued communication dated 06.03.2012 to the petitioner intimating that, the pipelines under Bulk Water Transmission, Main Pipeline Project N.C.-33, is likely to be laid across the land of the petitioner and the compensation qua BT cotton would be paid to the petitioner. A necessary panchnama had been carried out over the land in question belonging to the petitioner on 06.03.2012 and to what extent the land of the petitioner would be effected that has also been indicated in the separatesheet. The Chief Engineer and Additional Secretary, Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar had issued notification with regard to acquisition of right of users qua land belonging to the petitioner on 25.06.2012 and the same came to be published in Official Gazette on 26.06.2012. The Chief Engineer and Additional Secretary, Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply and Kalpsar Department, Sachivalaya, Gandhinagar had issued notification with regard to acquisition of right of users qua land belonging to the petitioner on 25.06.2012 and the same came to be published in Official Gazette on 26.06.2012. The acquisition rights of the petitioner being affected a total sum of Rs.34,107/- was determined and assessed and the same came to be paid to the petitioner vide cheque of HDFC Bank, Surendranagar dated 27.06.2012. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that Senior Manager (Civil) and Competent Officer (N.C.-33), Gujarat Water Infrastructure Limited, Surendranagar had issued a notice dated 09.07.2012 to the petitioner inviting objections as the land was being effected for the purpose of laying down the aforesaid pipeline. The respondent authority had also issued another notice on 03.12.2012 with regard to the said aspect as a result of this, the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing which was fixed on 15.03.2013. On the date of hearing, the petitioner had remained present and explained the circumstances and projected certain measures to be undertaken so as to see that land may not be damaged to some extent. However, after the same process being over, the respondent No.2 had awarded a sum of Rs.5,885/- qua the compensation for the land of the petitioner insofar as admeasuring 0-26-75 (Hec.-Are-Sq.Mtr) and later on a further communication came to be issued on 21.08.2013 again intimated the petitioner to remain present. The respondent No.3 in supervision and control of respondent No.2 had laid down the pipeline by executing the work. But on account of such work, the serious damage has caused to the land and irreversible situation is created which has resulted in to a claim of compensation to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- and for the purpose of claiming such, a legal notice was served upon the respondent authority. Despite the said notice having been given since there was no response, the petitioner was constrained to file a claim before respondent No.1 authority on 27.10.2015 and thereby the total claim was made to the extent of Rs.4,50,000/-. To substantiate the claim, the necessary panchnama, the relevant statements and stones and baval trees which were found on the land were also been submitted before the authority by giving details. To substantiate the claim, the necessary panchnama, the relevant statements and stones and baval trees which were found on the land were also been submitted before the authority by giving details. During the said process, respondent No.2 had filed written statement on 14.09.2017 and tried to resist and later on the petitioner had to file Civil Suit being Regular Civil Suit No.189/2014 for seeking further compensation to be paid. The said suit being Regular Civil Suit No.189/2014 stated to have been filed by the petitioner but in fact according to petitioner, the same was filed at a relevant point of time by one Mr. Maheshbhai Lakhmanbhai Patel which was later on withdrawn on account of settlement which took place with him and the respondents have not paid any compensation. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that on account of such fact the petitioner was not paid any compensation as a result of this, a specific application was submitted on 03.01.2018 before Mamlatdar, Muli to again make a necessary panchanama of his field, but the Mamlatdar at a relevant point of time has not dealt with at all the said request and no steps were taken to determine the compensation and later on without taking into consideration, the actual facts which are prevailing on record the claim petition submitted by the petitioner came to be rejected vide order dated 20.09.2017 which has constrained the petitioner to bring this petition in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. When this petition came up for consideration, Mr. A. B. Gateshaniya, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the order dated 20.09.2017 is passed without assigning any reason whatsoever nature and further the report which has been relied upon as is reflecting has never been served upon the petitioner which has effected the right of making effective representation. So on these two counts, the order impugned is absolutely on conflict with well recognized principles of natural justice and hence, requested to quash and set aside the same. So on these two counts, the order impugned is absolutely on conflict with well recognized principles of natural justice and hence, requested to quash and set aside the same. Mr.Gateshaniya, learned advocate has submitted that though his land has been badly effected to the extent which has been indicated in the petition yet he is deprived of compensation and that has violated his fundamental rights and as such the order impugned deserves to be corrected and the authority is required to be directed to reconsider the request of the petitioner in the light of statement, the necessary panchnama and the work which has been actually carried out over the land of the petitioner and has reiterated his requested to direct appropriately the authority to reconsider. 6. As against this, Ms. Hetal Patel, learned AGP appearing on behalf of the authority has submitted that the respondent No.1 Collector while passing an order has gone into the material which is prevailing on record and after proper scrutiny of relevant record has come to the conclusion and rejected the request of the petitioner. Learned AGP has submitted that mere non-assigning of reason would not receive the decision making process and a such has requested to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, it is undisputedly prevailing on record that the land for the purpose of laying down pipelines have been utilized which belong to the petitioner to an extent as indicated in the order itself and at the same time, it is also evident that the claim has not been so far paid to the petitioner. It is further reveal from the bare reading of order at Annexure-A that though the authority has considered the material fact that such report which has been relied upon is not provided to the petitioner and as such on the basis of such unilateral version the authority has exercised the discretion. It is trite law that if any material adverse to the petitioner if to be relied upon at least the same is to be supplied so as to allow the petitioner to make effective representation and that undisputedly the report having not been supplied, the petitioner's right has been adversely effected. It is trite law that if any material adverse to the petitioner if to be relied upon at least the same is to be supplied so as to allow the petitioner to make effective representation and that undisputedly the report having not been supplied, the petitioner's right has been adversely effected. Apart from this fact, the order further indicates that there is no independent reason to assign in the order itself as to way the application is not to be entertained and as such on two counts, the order suffers from the vice of non application of mind as well as violative of a well recognized principle of law violation of natural justice. As a result of this, on these two counts, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Since this issue about payment of compensation relates to the year 2017-2018, the grievance voiced out by the petitioner deserves urgent attention. Hence, the Court is of the clear opinion that following directions would meet the ends of justice: (i) The present petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 20.09.2017 is hereby quashed and set aside and as a consequence thereof, the respondent Collector, Surendranagar is directed to re-examine and reconsider the grievance of the petitioner and after due compliance of principles of natural justice shall pass a reasoned order. (iii) Since the issue relates to the year 2015-2016 with regard to claim, the respondent Collector is directed to undertake fresh exercise of decision making process as earlier as possible and shall decide in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. (iv) This Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to claim of the petitioner and it would be independently open for the respondent Collector to examine and to pass a reasoned order.