Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1087 (GUJ)

Arjanbhai Lakhabhai Baraiya v. State Of Gujarat

2023-09-18

ANIRUDDHA P.MAYEE, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2023
JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. By means of present petition, the petitioners seek following relief: “7[a] to allow this petition with costs and issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order in the nature of writ, as may be deemed to be appropriate and direct the respondents not to take forcible possession of the land of Survey no.3 paiki 2 of Village Kathwa, Taluka Talaja, District Bhavnagar and further direct the respondents to strictly act in consonance with the said Award, dated 29.07.1987, passed in Land Acquisition Case No.13 of 1984 only and acquire such land, which was ordered to be acquired and for which, compensation was paid to concerned agriculturists and also direct that very heavy compensatory costs be awarded to the petitioners, who are made to rush from pillar to post, before they are made to rush to this Hon’ble Court to save their valuable land for no fault of theirs;” 2. The petitioners herein claiming to be heirs and legal representatives of Lakhabhai Baraiya seek to submit that they have inherited the agricultural land of Survey No.3 paiki 2 of Village: Kathwa, Taluka: Talaja, District: Bhavnagar, total admeasuring 0-45-70 sq. mtrs. of Kahata No.119, they are, thus, owners of the said plot, which was initially recorded in the name of their father namely, Lakhabhai Bhagwanbhai Baraiya. It is contended in the writ petition that in the acquisition proceedings for construction of Alang-Manar Bypass Road through lands of Village: Kathwa, Taluka: Talaja, District: Bhavnagar in the year 1985, the land of the predecessor of the writ petitioners viz. Survey No.3 paiki, admeasuring 0-45-70 sq. mtrs. of Khata No.119 was never acquired. The father of the writ petitioners (original owner) had never received any notice with regard to the process of acquisition nor any compensation was paid to him. The land in question remained in the possession of the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners throughout and now the petitioners herein are in actual physical possession of the land in question and they are tilting the said land till date. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the name of the father of the writ petitioners namely, Lakhabhai Bhagwanbhai Baraiya was never recorded in the land acquisition proceedings, nor even the award which was passed on 29.7.1987. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the name of the father of the writ petitioners namely, Lakhabhai Bhagwanbhai Baraiya was never recorded in the land acquisition proceedings, nor even the award which was passed on 29.7.1987. It is contended that though the said land was never part of the aforesaid acquisition process, but in the award, Survey No.3, admeasuring 0-39-10 sq. mtr. was included as part of the acquisition. The break-up of the same as can be seen, as forming part of the said award by way of Schedule ‘K’, names of three persons namely, (i) Mala Jetha (sic Rupsang) – 3 paiki – land acquired – 0-10-50; (ii) Vashram Jiva – 3 paiki 1 admeasuring 0-8-10; and (iii) Hamji Visa – 3 paiki – land acquired – 0-20-50, have been shown to have been included, making total area of acquired land of Survey No.3 paiki as 0-39-10. It is contended that neither Mala Jetha nor Hamji Visa, who are shown to be the tenor holders of land of Survey No.3 paiki, ever possessed or owned any such land. In fact, the lands of their ownerships were 2 paiki 2/2 and 8 paiki 7/2; respectively. Further, from Survey No.3 paiki 1/2, only an area of 0-8-10 belonging to aforesaid Vashram Jiva was acquired, which can also be co-related from Village Form No.8-A. The land admeasuring 0-10-50 of Survey No.2 paiki 2/2 belonging to Mala Jetha (sic Rupsang), out of total area of 0-60-70 was acquired. Similarly, Survey No.8 paiki 7/2 area 0-20-50 belonging to Hamji Visa was part of the acquisition. It is, thus, submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that adding the total area of the above noted three plots viz. Survey No.3 paiki 1/2, Survey No.2 paiki 2/2 and Survey No.8 paiki 7/2 belonging to Vashram Jiva, Mala Jetha (sic Rupsang) and Hamji Visa; respectively, it can be seen that total area of 0-39-10 comprising of aforesaid three plots of village was acquired for construction of road. However, by making interpolation in the revenue records, by overwriting ‘3 on 2’ against the name of Mala Jetha and by overwriting ‘8 on 3’ against the name of Hamji Visa, entries were forged in the revenue records to create the record of acquisition of Survey No.3 paiki, the land which remains in occupation of the writ petitioners till date. 4. 4. A handwritten copy of the Village Form No.6 appended as Annexure-’F’ has been place before us to assert that there is clear overwriting in the survey numbers, which can be seen from the record of acquisition. In any case, Survey No.3 paiki, apart from area of 0-8-10 belonging to Vashram Jiva, had not been acquired. The above noted two persons namely, Mala Jetha and Hamji Visa were never owners of Survey No.3 paiki. The contention is that without any acquisition process for acquiring Survey No.3 paiki 1/2 in the ownership of the petitioners, they are threatened by the officials of the respondents in the month of April 2022 that they will be dispossessed of their agricultural land. It is contended that the petitioners moved an application on 9.5.2022 enclosing the copy of the interpolated and overwritten record of Village Form No.6, wherein the lands in Survey Nos.2 paiki and 8 paiki were overwritten as 3 paiki and the name of Mala Rupsang was overwritten as Mala Jetha. It is contended in the writ petition that even there was no person named as Mala Jetha holding the land of Survey No.2 paiki 2/2 and it was actually Mala Rupsang Parmar, which can be seen from Village Form No.6 and Entry No.767 dated 25.6.2013, which records the names of heirs of deceased Malabhai Rupsangbhai parmar and Baluben Malabhai Parmar, certified on 11.9.2013. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners, thus, is that not only survey numbers were overwritten qua the land of Mala Rupsang rather his name was also overwritten as Mala Jetha. A forgery has, thus, been made in the revenue record, however, the senior officers of the revenue department viz. District Collector had turned a blind eye to the aforesaid application. The petitioners having left with no alternative remedy are constrained to file the instant petition. The attempt being made for forcible dispossession of the writ petitioners at the instance of the revenue authorities and the Executive Engineer, Road and Building Department is ex facie illegal and wholly unjust. 6. In support of the said submission, the attention of the Court is invited to pages ‘40’ and ‘49’ of the paper book to assert that overwriting in the records are visible from naked eye. 6. In support of the said submission, the attention of the Court is invited to pages ‘40’ and ‘49’ of the paper book to assert that overwriting in the records are visible from naked eye. It is contended that despite best efforts made by the petitioners, the respondents have not heard their grievances nor made necessary correction in the revenue records nor directed to correct the entry and they be restrained from interfering with the physical possession of the writ petitioners over Survey No.3 paiki 1/2 of Village: Kathwa, Taluka: Talaja, District: Bhavnagar which is the land belonging to the writ petitioners. 7. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 viz. Executive Engineer, Road and Building Division, District Panchayat, Bhavnagar, it is submitted that the land bearing Survey No.3 admeasuring 1050 shown in the name of Malabhai Jethabhai; land bearing Survey No.3 paiki admeasuring 810 sq.mtrs. owned by Vashrambhai Jivabhai and the land bearing Survey No.3 paiki admeasuring 2050 sq.mtrs. owned by Hamji Velabhai of Village: Kathwa, Taluka: Talaja, District: Bhavnagar were acquired after following due process laid down under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The copy of the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in Case No.13/1984 has been appended therein to assert that even the award of compensation for the land in question has been declared which is required for construction of Alang-Manar Bypass Road. The acquisition proceeding with respect to Survey No.3, admeasuring 0-39-10 has, thus, been concluded with the making of the award and the land having been vested with the State Government, the possession of the writ petitioners is illegal. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned counsel appeared for the respondent District Panchayat, Bhavnagar and respondent No.3 has objected to the contention in the writ petition with the above submissions. 8. In the further affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 in reply, it is submitted that though the award was declared on 29.7.1987 in the names of above noted three persons shown as owners of Survey No.3 paiki, but at the time of demarcation of the land in question for construction of the road, it came to light that the names of Malabhai Jethabhai and Hamjibhai Visa had never appeared in the revenue record so far as Survey No.3 paiki admeasuring 1050 sq.mtrs. and 2050 sq.mtrs. recorded in the award. and 2050 sq.mtrs. recorded in the award. It was, thus, decided that the aforesaid pieces of land of Survey No.3 paiki which is claimed to be owned by the petitioners as per the revenue records, would not be touched for construction of road at that stage, unless and until the issue is resolved by the competent authority. A letter dated 29.3.2023 was addressed to the District Collector, Talaja, District: Bhavnagar to take necessary corrective steps. 9. With another affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3, the copies of acquisition notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 2.11.1985 and 3.8.1986; respectively, have been appended to demonstrate that Survey No.3 paiki, admeasuring 0-39-10 was acquired by the aforesaid notifications, by adopting due process of law. 10. In the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.4 viz. Special Land Acquisition Officer, office of Collector, Bhavnagar, it is categorically stated that the land in Survey No.3 paiki area 0-39-10 had been acquired for construction of Manar-Alang Bypass Road, with respect to which the award dated 29.7.1987 was passed in Land Acquisition Case No.13/84. The land in question is vested in the State Government and remains unutilised on account of dispute raised by the writ petitioners. The copy of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 2.11.1985 has been appended therein. The copy of Form No.7/12 of Survey No.3 paiki has been appended as Annexure-R1, wherein the name of father of the writ petitioners and co-owners namely, Lakha Bhavan and Kana Bhavan have been recorded. A copy of the public notice dated 17.3.1986 inviting objections on the preliminary notification under Section 4 has been appended as Annexure-R2 to submit that the same was published in accordance with law, but no objections were received by the respondent authorities against the proposed acquisition. Final notification dated 3.8.1986 had then been issued which is appended as Annexure-R3. It is contended in the said affidavit that by oversight, the name of Mala Jetha, owner of 2 paiki was entered in the land acquisition proceedings at the time of preparation of statements of the acquired land as per the Land Acquisition Rules, in place of the recorded tenure holder namely Lakha Bhavan, as against the revenue record. The said mistake had occurred at the time of preparation of record of the land acquisition proceedings. The said mistake had occurred at the time of preparation of record of the land acquisition proceedings. The copies of the measurement and statement as per para 104 of the Land Acquisition Rules prepared stating the name of the owners and area of the land proposed to be acquired, are appended as Annexure-R4. It is contended that on account of said mistake, the incorrect names of the owners had continued and was also entered in the award which was passed on 29.7.1987. The compensation for the land in question has been deposited by the competent authority in the government treasury. It is contended that till date, the amount towards compensation of the acquired area of Survey No.3 paiki, wrongly recorded in the names of Mala jetha and Hamji Visa, is still lying in the government treasury as it was never claimed. With Mutation Entry No.562, the effect was given to the acquisition award into the revenue records. It is then contended that after passage of six months of publication of the award, in view of the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, it was not possible for the revenue authority to rectify the error and the petitioners herein have never approached the respondent authority since after making of the award on 29.7.1987. The result is that wrong entries in the names of those persons though had continued, but the same does not prejudice the writ petitioners as compensation has not been disbursed to the persons wrongly mentioned as owners of Survey No.3 paiki. 11. This contention of the respondent State is sought to be assailed by the learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder by submitting that the contention of the respondents that the payment under the award dated 29.7.1987 has not been made to the persons whose names were allegedly recorded wrongly in the land acquisition records, is incorrect. The attention of the Court is invited to the documents appended at pages ‘42 to 47F’ of the paper book to assert that the said documents show that the compensation under the award had been disbursed to those persons whose names were recorded in the revenue records. The attention of the Court is invited to the documents appended at pages ‘42 to 47F’ of the paper book to assert that the said documents show that the compensation under the award had been disbursed to those persons whose names were recorded in the revenue records. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that this is the case of the alteration, interpolation and forgery in the revenue records and wrong names were entered in the record of acquisition as owners of Survey No.3 and at some places, even the name of the said person namely, Mala Jetha (sic Rupsang) had wrongly been recorded in order to deprive the land owner to his land. It can be seen from naked eye that 2 was overwritten as 3 against the name of Mala Jetha, whereas 8 was overwritten as 2 against the name of Hamji Visa. No notice at any point of time during the course of acquisition was given to the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners, whose name was duly recorded in the revenue records with respect to the land in Survey No.3 paiki. There was no question of filing of objection. Even no notice was received by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners after making of the award and, as such, there was no question of seeking any correction or making any objection about acquisition of Survey No.3. It is argued that in absence of any notice of making of the award to the actual owner of Survey No.3 and the fact that the petitioners, who are the present owners, have not been dispossessed till date, the submission of the respondents about acquisition proceedings having been concluded or the land being vested with the State Government, is misconceived. The vehement contention is that the petitioners’ lands were never part of the acquisition process for the aforesaid road and they cannot be deprived of their source of livelihood viz. the land in question. 12. It is vehemently contended that despite best efforts made by the writ petitioners, they could not lay their hands on the acquisition notifications. The record of the land acquisition proceedings does not record the name of the father of the writ petitioners. The land in question has not been utilised as admitted by the respondents, till date for construction of the road, which was made in the year 1985/1986. The record of the land acquisition proceedings does not record the name of the father of the writ petitioners. The land in question has not been utilised as admitted by the respondents, till date for construction of the road, which was made in the year 1985/1986. It is, thus, evident that the land in question in Survey No.3 paiki had neither been acquired nor needed by the respondents for construction of the road in question. As the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners had been deprived of participating in the land acquisition proceedings, allegedly of Survey No.3 paiki, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their agricultural land on the premise that there was a mistake in the entries of the land acquisition records. It is a clear case of interpolation and forgery in the records of the respondents and they cannot be permitted to argue that the application for correction was required to be moved by the writ petitioners. 13. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the cases of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagananth [ (1994) 1 SCC 1 ], Commissioner of Customs, kandla vs. Essar Oil Limited & Ors. [2004 LawSuit (SC) 1668], Hamza Haji vs. State of kerala [(2006) 7 SCC 416], Ram Preeti Yadav vs. U.P. Board of H.S. and Intermediate Education [ (2003) 8 SCC 311 , Ram Charan Singh vs. Savitri Devi [ (2003) 8 SCC 319 ] and State of U.P. & Ors. vs. Ravindra Kumar Sharma & Ors. [ (2016) 4 SCC 791 ] to submit that injury caused to the writ petitioners in view of fraud and forgery in the records is sufficient to allow the writ petition. It was argued that no notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioners, showing him as person interested in land, entitled for compensation. 14. It was argued that it is settled that fraud vitiates every solemn act and in view of the fraud established from the record, which could not be disputed by the respondents in any of these affidavits, the writ petition deserves to be allowed, restraining the respondents from interfering in the landed property of the writ petitioners, on the premise that it was part of acquisition. 15. Mr. 15. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned AGP, in rebuttal, argued that no dispute can be raised by the writ petitioners about the acquisition notifications which were published by including Survey No.3 paiki area 0-39-10, the award with respect to the land in question has also been declared much earlier. No dispute could be raised about the compensation awarded with respect to the land in question under the award dated 29.7.1987. The contention of the writ petitioners that the land in question was not part of the acquisition process, which was concluded with the making of the award on 29.7.1987, therefore, cannot be accepted. 16. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to interpolation/forgery in the revenue records, it is contended that the entries which are shown by the petitioners pertain to the land acquisition records and consequent mutation. In the revenue records, admittedly, the name of the petitioners was recorded at the time of acquisition of the land in question. The mistake which has occurred in the land acquisition record in the name of the father of the owner of the land in question would not make the process of acquisition invalid or illegal. The mistake has been accepted by the respondents in the affidavit filed before this Court in the instant petition. With the acceptance of the mistake, element of fraud is obliterated. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the allegation of fraud and interpolation in the records in the name of the tenure holders/owners of the land in question, therefore, has no merit. 17. It is further vehemently contended by the learned AGP that with the conclusion of the acquisition proceedings by the award dated 29.7.1987, the land in question vests with the State Government. The compensation has already been deposited and is lying in the office of respondent No.5. As regards the notice to the persons interested, it is contended by the learned AGP that after publication of the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, notice under Section 9 was issued intimating to the public at large that the land in question of Survey No.3 paiki, area 0-30-10 had been notified for acquisition and the government intended to take possession of the land and that claims for compensation for all interests in such land may be made to the Collector. The entire writ petition is silent about the action taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the writ petitioner to lay his claim for interest in the land. The land in question was acquired for the road and in such acquisition, alignment is to be adhered. Any piece of land or any pocket of land, if left in between, the road alignment will be seriously prejudiced. 18. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the arguments with regard to forgery and that the public notice does not contain the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and, therefore, there was no question for him to lay his claim. 19. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the record, we may go through the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 which provides for publication of preliminary notification under Section 4, notifying the intention of the State Government that the land in any locality is needed or is likely to be needed for any public purpose. On publication of the said notification in two daily newspapers circulating in the locality, the Collector shall cause public notice of the substance of such notification to be given at convenient places in the said locality. Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act,1 894 provides opportunity to the persons interested in any land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 4 to raise objection to the acquisition of the land within 30 days from the date of publication of the notification. Sub-section (2) of Section 5A provides that on such objection being made to the Collector in writing, the Collector shall give to the objector an opportunity of being heard in person or by any person authorised by him in this behalf, or by pleader. It further provides that after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as the Collector thinks necessary, it shall make a report in respect to the land which has been notified under Section 4(1) to the appropriate government containing his recommendation of the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of the State Government. The decision of the appropriate government on the objection shall be final. The decision of the appropriate government on the objection shall be final. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 further provides that any person interested in the land for the purpose of Section 5A shall be deemed to be a person who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the lands were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 20. The declaration under Section 6 is published thereafter in the official gazette and in two daily newspapers circulating in locality in which the land is situate. Apart from the said publication, the Collector has to cause the public notice of the substance of such declaration to be given at convenient places in the said locality. Sub-section (3) of Section 6 provides that the declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is conclusive evidence that the land is needed for a public purpose. Sections 7 and 8 further provide that the Collector shall take order for acquisition from the appropriate government after declaration under Section 6 and thereupon, the cause the land to be marked out and measured. 21. Section 9 further provides that the Collector shall cause public notice to be given at convenient places or on near the land to be taken, stating the intention of the government to take possession of the land and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land to be made to him. The notice under Section 9 shall state the particulars of the land so needed and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at the time and place therein mentioned, and to state the nature of their respective interest in the land and amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interest, as also their objections, if any, to the measurement made under Section 8. The award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 shall then be made considering the objections raised by any person interested pursuant to the notice given under Section 9. With the making of the award under Section 11, the Collector gets power to take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances, bringing the land acquisition proceedings to their logical conclusion. 22. With the making of the award under Section 11, the Collector gets power to take possession of the land, which shall thereupon vest absolutely in the government free from all encumbrances, bringing the land acquisition proceedings to their logical conclusion. 22. It is settled that the transfer of possession under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by drawing a panchnama or possession memo is an approved mode of taking possession. The land owner cannot be permitted to contend that since actual physical possession of the acquired land has not been taken, or that since he continued to remain in actual physical possession despite drawing of panchnama under Section 16, the land acquisition proceedings had not been concluded. Reference be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority vs. Manoharlal & Ors. [ (2020) 8 SCC 129 ]. 23. Reverting to the facts of this case, in light of the above legal position, we may note that the petitioners who are heirs and legal representatives of the original tenure holder namely, Lakhabhai Baraiya approached this Court in the instant petition for the first time in the month of March 2023 to seek the relief that they may not be dispossessed of the land in Survey No.3 paiki 2 of Village: Kathwa, Taluka: Talaja, District: Bhavnagar. During the course of arguments, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were not intimated about the acquisition of their land in Survey No.3 and by making forgery, by overwriting 3 over 2 and 8, the land of Survey No.3 paiki, as against the acquired land in Survey Nos.2 and 8 belonging to Mala Jetha and Hamji Visa, is sought to be acquired by the respondent authority. As the petitioners remain in unhindered possession of the land in question, there was no occasion for them to approach this Court or any authority to raise their grievance. On account of wrong entry of the name of the tenure holder in the land acquisition record, there was no occasion for payment of compensation to the original owner i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. Much emphsis has been laid on the entries in the land acquisition record to vehemently assert that the land in Survey No.3 paiki 2, Village: Talaja, District: Bhavnagar was not part of the acquisition in question. 24. Much emphsis has been laid on the entries in the land acquisition record to vehemently assert that the land in Survey No.3 paiki 2, Village: Talaja, District: Bhavnagar was not part of the acquisition in question. 24. We are afraid to agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners for the above noted provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which prescribe the manner in which the acquisition process is to be completed by the competent authority. Having noted the above provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, we may reiterate that the public notice of acquisition is caused at every stage from Section 4 to Section 16, i.e. from the stage of the publication of Section 4 notification till the drawing of panchnama or possession memo under Section 16. The notifications published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 do not contain the names of the tenure holders, rather the description of the land intended to be acquired is given in Section 4 notification and Section 6 notification is the final declaration to the effect that the State Government had decided to acquire the land mentioned therein. Between the two process of acquisition under Sections 4 and 6, the land owner of the land notified under Section 6 has a right to make objection under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 25. The notification under section 4 dated 2.11.1985, in the instant case, stated as under: “No.MUNI-LAQ-Talaja-Sec.4-Reg. No.6/85. - Whereas by Government Notification, Revenue Department No.AM/78/2094/M/LAQ/1078/1081-LA-IV, dated 26th October, 1978 issued under the powers conferred by sub- section (2) of Section 52-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Act No.1 of 1894) in its application to the State of Gujarat the powers of the State Government to issue preliminary notification under section 4 except the powers to issue preliminary notification for the acquisition of land for the companies under Part VII of the said Act have been delegated to the Collector of District. And whereas it appears to the Collector of Bhavnagar District that the lands specified in the Schedule hereto are likely to be needed for a public purpose viz. for const. of Manar Alang by pass Road Village Kathava. And whereas it appears to the Collector of Bhavnagar District that the lands specified in the Schedule hereto are likely to be needed for a public purpose viz. for const. of Manar Alang by pass Road Village Kathava. It is hereby notified under the provisions of section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894) that the said lands are likely to be needed for the purpose specified above. 2. All persons interested in the said lands are hereby warned not to obstruct or interfere with any Surveyors or other persons employed upon the said lands for the purpose of the said acquisition. Any contracts for the disposal of the said lands by sale, lease, mortgage, assignment, exchange or otherwise or any outlay or improvements made therein without the sanction of the Collector, after the date of this notification will under section 24 (seventhly) of the said Act be disregarded by the officer assessing compensation for such parts of the said lands as may be finally acquired. 3. If the Government of Gujarat is satisfied that the said lands are needed for the aforesaid purpose, a final notification to that effect under section 6 of the said Act will be published in the Gujarat Government Gazette in due course. If the acquisition is in part or wholly abandoned the fact will be duly notified in the Gujarat Government Gazette. 4. Under clause (c) of section 3 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Government Notification, Revenue Department Notification No. LAQ-2262-69177-K, dated 11th October 1963 the Collector of Bhavnagar District, Bhavnagar is pleased to appoint the Special Land Acquisition Officer who may for the time being in charge of Taluka to perform the functions of Collector under Section 5-A of the said Act in respect of the said lands. SCHEDULE District, Taluka, Village Survey No. Approximate area of the lands required 1 2 3 H.A.sq.M. Bhavnagar Talaja Kathava 3 paiki 0 – 39 – 10 5 pakik 0 – 25 – 60 55 paiki 0 – 64 – 20 7 paiki 0 – 42 – 60 10/2 paiki 0 – 87 – 10 11/1 paiki 0 – 20 – 30 11/2 paiki 0 – 25 – 85 12 paiki 0 – 68 – 78 14 paiki 0 – 03 – 37 56 paiki 0 – 28 – 50 56 paiki 0 – 12 – 16 Bhavnagar, 2nd November, 1985 CHAMAN KUMAR Collector Bhavnagar District Bhavnagar.” 26. From the reading of the said notification, it is clear that with the publication of the land specified in the Schedule thereto, all persons interested in the land were not to obstruct or interfere with the service of other persons employed upon the said land for the purpose of said acquisition. They were prohibited from entering into contract for disposal of the said land by sale, lease, etc. It was also notified that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, In-charge of Taluka shall perform the functions of the Collector under Section 5A of the Act in respect of the said lands. The land in Survey No.3 paiki, area 0-39-10 was notified as the land specified in the schedule to the notification dated 2.11.1985. Section 6 notification dated 3.8.1986 further reads thus: “Final Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Collector where no objections have been taken by the interested persons against the Land Acquisition proceeding. LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (I OF 1894) District: Bhavnagar No.MUNI-LAQ-Talaja/Regi. No.9/Sec.6/86. Section 6 notification dated 3.8.1986 further reads thus: “Final Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by Collector where no objections have been taken by the interested persons against the Land Acquisition proceeding. LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 (I OF 1894) District: Bhavnagar No.MUNI-LAQ-Talaja/Regi. No.9/Sec.6/86. - Whereas by Government Notification, Revenue Department, No. AM-81-1225/M/LAQ/1081/GH, dated 22nd December, 1981 issued under the power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 52-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) in its application to the State of Gujarat the powers of the State Government to issue final Notification under Section 6 except the powers to issue final notification for the cases of acquisition of land under Section 17 of the acquisition of the said Act, cases of acquisition of land which is required for and on behalf of the Central Government, cases of acquisition of land for the Companies under Part-VII of the said Act, and where no objections have been received under Section 5-A of the said Act have been delegated to the Collector of District. Whereas by Collector, Bhavnagar’s Notification No. MUNI-LAQ-Talaja-Sec-4/Regi. No.6/85, dated 2nd November, 1986 it was notified that the lands specified in the Schedule hereto (hereinafter referred to as the said lands) were likely to to be needed for the public purpsoe specified in Column-4 of the Schedule hereto. And whereas the Collector of Bhavnagar is satisfied after considering the report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bhavangar under Sub -Section (2) of Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (I of 1894) that no objections have been taken by interested persons and that the said lands are needed to be acquired at the public expense for the public purpose specified in Column-4 of the Schedule hereto. It is hereby declared under the provision of Section-6 of the said Act that the lands are required for the public purpose specified in Column-4 of the Schedule hereto. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bhavnagar is hereby appointed under clause (c) of Section-3 of the said Act read with Governmetn Notification, Revenue Department No. LAQ-2262-69117-K, dated 11th October, 1963 to perform the functions of a Collector for all proceedings hereafter to be taken in respect of the said lands. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bhavnagar is hereby appointed under clause (c) of Section-3 of the said Act read with Governmetn Notification, Revenue Department No. LAQ-2262-69117-K, dated 11th October, 1963 to perform the functions of a Collector for all proceedings hereafter to be taken in respect of the said lands. He is also directed under Section-7 of the said Act read with Government Notification, Revenue Department No.LAQ-226269177-K, dated 11th October, 1963, to take order for the acquisition of the said lands. A plan of the said lands can be inspected at the Office of The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bhavnagar. SCHEDULE District, Taluka and Village in which the lands are situated Survey No. Approximate area of the lands required Public purpsoe for which the lands are needed 1 2 3 4 H.A.sq.M. Bhavnagar Talaja Kathava 3 paiki 0 – 39 – 10 Const. of Manar-Alang by pass Road 5 pakik 0 – 25 – 60 55 paiki 0 – 64 – 20 7 paiki 0 – 42 – 60 10/2 paiki 0 – 87 – 10 11/1 paiki 0 – 20 – 30 11/2 paiki 0 – 25 – 85 12 paiki 0 – 68 – 78 14 paiki 0 – 03 – 37 56 paiki 0 – 28 – 50 56 paiki 0 – 12 – 16 Bhavnagar, 3rd August, 1986.” 27. A reading of Section 6 notification indicates that no objections have been taken by the interested persons under Section 5A and after considering the report of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bhavnagar, decision was taken to acquire the land finally. There is no dispute about the fact that no objection was taken by the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners with respect to the acquisition of Survey No.3 paiki area 0-39-10 in accordance with Section 5A, on the publication of Section 4 notification. There is no dispute about the notice under Section 9 having been issued by the Collector stating particulars of the land needed for acquisition and that the government’s intention to take possession of the said land. On the publication of the said notice, all persons interested in the land were required to lay their claims before the Collector. There is nothing on record as to whether the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had responded to the notice issued under Section 9, which necessarily to contain the statement of the particulars of the land acquired. 28. On the publication of the said notice, all persons interested in the land were required to lay their claims before the Collector. There is nothing on record as to whether the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had responded to the notice issued under Section 9, which necessarily to contain the statement of the particulars of the land acquired. 28. We may record that upto this stage, neither the Collector nor the State Government was required to make an inquiry as to the names of the persons interested in the land or the nature of their respective interests in the land. The inquiry with respect to the details of the persons interested and the nature of their interest in the acquired land is made after publication of the notice under Section 9. There is no whisper in the writ petition about any steps taken by the original land owner after publication of the notice under Section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It seems that on account of the mistake of the concerned authority during the land acquisition proceedings, the names of two persons namely, Mala Jetha and Hamji Visa had wrongly been entered in the records being owners of portion of Survey No.3 paiki, mentioned hereinabove. It is categorical stand of the respondent State that the compensation for the acquired land of Survey No.3 paiki, area 0-39-10 has not been disbursed and is lying with respondent No.5. 29. In the said scenario, the claim of the petitioners about the interpolation/forgery/manipulation of record of acquisition is wholly baseless. Even otherwise, there was no challenge to any of the stage of the acquisition proceedings by the original owner. The entire writ petition is silent about the steps taken by the original owner to raise objection to the acquisition of Survey No.3 paiki area 0-39-10. The petitioners, who are successors of the original owners, whose name was recorded in the revenue record at the time of acquisition, cannot be permitted to raise a dispute with regard to the acquisition of Survey No.3 paiki, area 0-39-10 which has been concluded with the transfer of possession to the State Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 30. 30. The contentions of the petitioners that as they remained in possession of the acquired land throughout and the fact of acquisition came to their knowledge in the month of April 2022 when the officers of the respondent authority came on the spot to dispossess them, are of no consequence. It is settled that with the drawing of panchnama or the possession memo under Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the acquisition is complete and the land vests in the State Government absolutely free from all encumbrances. In absence of any challenge to any of the stage of the acquisition proceedings by the original owner, for the mere fact that the names of tenure holders/owners of the land had wrongly been recorded in the land acquisition records, the petitioners in this writ petition cannot succeed. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development Authority (supra), the possession memo or the panchnama being accepted mode of transfer of possession of the acquired land, the possession of tenure holder/owner or any person through him or any other occupant, would be illegal. 31. It is clarified that for any claim of the petitioners to seek disbursement of compensation lying in the treasury, it is open for them to lay their claim before the Special Land Acquisition Officer – respondent No.5 by moving a proper application giving particulars of their right, title and interest in the land in question. On such application being filed by the petitioners, the Special Land Acquisition Officer concerned shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of the same. In case the petitioners are found entitled to receive compensation, disbursement of the compensation lying in the treasury be made by deciding the question of apportionment amongst all co-tenure holders. In any case, in the matter of disbursement of compensation, the Special Land Acquisition Officer would be required to keep in mind the provisions contained in Sections 29 and 30 in Part IV, for apportionment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. 32. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. 32. Subject to the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. FURTHER ORDER The oral request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners for stay of the order for a period of four weeks is hereby rejected.