Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2111 (GUJ)

Daiben Chaturbhai Prajapati v. State Of Gujarat

2024-12-02

PRANAV TRIVEDI, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2024
JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) 1. Perused the affidavit dated 13.09.2024 of the officer working as Assistant Engineer, Narmada Yojana Main Canal, Sub Division No. 3/1, Chanasama, wherein an unconditional apology has been tendered for the statement made in the affidavit dated 11.03.2024 filed by the officer, which was found to be misleading and deceptive by the Court. 2. It is submitted by the officer concerned that such statement was made due to lack of experience in the land acquisition matters. Moreover, the communication, which was found misinterpreted by the then Deputy Executive Engineer, as found by this Court, was made by his predecessor and the officer namely the deponent of the affidavit had been given charge of the post of Deputy Executive Engineer only on 06.01.2024. 3. Noticing the above, we accept the apology tendered by the officer on oath making a statement that the contents of the affidavit dated 11.03.2024 were sworn by him without having due knowledge and understanding of land acquisition matters. The officer concerned, however, is directed to remain careful in future and should not make any attempt to file any affidavit in the Court without understanding the position of law pertaining to the matter. 4. The show-cause notice issued to the officer by means of the order dated 30.07.2024 is hereby discharged. 5. Coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioners herein seek for the release of the land in question namely Survey No. 503/2 situated at Village Asjol, Ta: Becharaji, Dist. Mehsana admeasuring 3358 sq.mts, under the provisions of Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act’ 1894, on the premise that there is no canal passing from a substantial part of the said land and compensation amount received by the petitioners has been returned to the competent authority as per the letter received from the office of Respondent No.7 namely Deputy Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojana, Main Canal Division No: 19/5, Patan. 6. 6. The stand of the petitioners in the writ petition on the basis of a letter dated 18.09.2002, which is appended at Page ‘38’ of the Paperbook, is that the Deputy Executive Engineer (Narmada Yojana, Main Canal Division 19/5) namely the Respondent No.7 herein, by means of the said communication asked the petitioner to deposit back the compensation amount received by him stating that on a joint measurement of the acquired land, it was found that an error has been committed by wrongly acquiring the land in Survey No. 503/2 instead of land in Survey No. 503/3 of Village Asjol, Dist. Mehsana. 7. The stand of the petitioners in the writ petition is that pursuant to the said communication, the petitioners had returned the compensation amount to the tune of Rs.16,259.90 by way of a cheque dated 14.10.2002 issued in the name of the Deputy Executive Engineer (Narmada Yojana, Main Canal Division No.19/5) namely the Respondent No.7 herein. 8. Having noticed the position of law that the officer of the acquiring body namely the Deputy Executive Engineer (Narmada Yojana) namely the Respondent No.7 herein was not competent to take any decision for withdrawal of the land in question from acquisition and ask his action in the petitioners to refund the amount of compensation was without jurisdiction, by order dated 02.02.2024, we required the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondent No.7 to verify from the original record as to how and in what manner, the letter dated 15.09.2002 had been issued to the petitioner. The statement of the petitioners for return of the compensation amount vide Cheque dated 14.10.2002 was also required to be verified and the personal affidavit of the Respondent No.7 – the Deputy Executive Engineer (Narmada Yojana, Main Canal Division No. 19/5) was to be filed. 9. The affidavit dated 11.03.2024 had been filed in response to our order dated 02.02.2024, wherein the officer working incharge of the Deputy Executive Engineer sought to justify the stand of his predecessor by stating in Paragraph ‘5.2’ that the communication dated 29.06.2000 was sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to verify the factum of acquisition of the land in question. 10. 10. It is stated that on verification, it was found that an error has cropped up in the acquisition proceedings and the award was brought to the knowledge of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the office of respondent No.7 by communications dated 04.09.2000, 07.08.2001 and lastly on 18.09.2002 stating that returning of the amount of compensation to the petitioners namely the land owners of Survey No.503/1 was not required and the only requirement was of returning 186 sq.mts out of 3544 sq.mts of Survey No. 503/2. Meaning thereby, the communications were sent that the portion of Survey No.503/2, to the extent of an area of 186 sq.mts was required to be returned to the petitioner. 11. There is a reference of the communication dated 05.07.2002/05.09.2002 sent by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to verify the details again and the office of Respondent No.7 had communicated with the office of the DILR by writing a letter dated 04.10.2000 to verify the details with regard to the proposal for the land which was actually acquired and actual status of the possession having been taken by the acquiring body. A request was made to prepare map for passing appropriate revised award. 12. It is further stated in Paragraph ‘5.4’ of the affidavit of the Deputy Executive Engineer dated 11.03.2024 that the office of Respondent No.5 namely Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada Yojana, Unit No.18) had instructed the office of Respondent No.7 to handover possession of Survey No. 503/1 and Survey No. 503/2 to the original agriculturist/owner of the land and do the needful for refund of compensation amount from the owners and further instructed to send report about release of the land in question and other lands, which were not actually acquired and not in the alignment of Narmada Canal. 13. It is submitted that upon receipt of the said instructions from the office of Respondent No.5 namely the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the deponent namely the Deputy Executive Engineer has forwarded proposal for release of the land in question and other lands which were not required. In the meantime, a proposal was forwarded for acquiring the land admeasuring 3544 sq.mts of Survey No.503/3 and 186 sq.mts of Survey No.503/2, pursuant to which, the land acquisition award dated 28.06.2005 with the Land Acquisition Case No.46 of 2002 had been published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Respondent No.5. In the meantime, a proposal was forwarded for acquiring the land admeasuring 3544 sq.mts of Survey No.503/3 and 186 sq.mts of Survey No.503/2, pursuant to which, the land acquisition award dated 28.06.2005 with the Land Acquisition Case No.46 of 2002 had been published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Respondent No.5. Upon receipt of the award in Land Acquisition Case No. 46 of 2002, the office of the answering respondent namely Respondent No.7 has communicated to the office of Respondent No.5 that for acquisition of land admeasuring 186 sq.mts of Survey No.503/2 is not mentioned in the aforesaid award and necessary rectification be made. The compensation amount for Survey No. 503/2 will have to be paid to the owner of Survey No. 503/2 for land admeasuring 186 sq.mts. 14. It is, then, stated that upon verification of the record, it was found that no rectification in the award has been made by the office of Respondent No.7 and, therefore, no payment has been made. It is further stated that pursuant to the award passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 46 of 2002 dated 28.06.2005, the compensation, which was paid to the owner of Survey No. 503/2 and 503/1 has been received and the same has been deposited in the accounts of the acquiring body. Further statement is to the effect that the compensation amount will be paid to the land owner of Survey No.503/3 after collecting the awarded amount. 15. With these averments made in the affidavit filed by the Deputy Executive Engineer of the acquiring body, it is sought to be submitted that there was a bona fide mistake cropped up in the mentioning of survey numbers in the map and therefore, the amount of compensation paid to the concerned owners of Survey No. 503/1 and 503/2 was directed to return to the officer of the Deputy Executive Engineer, inasmuch as, the aforesaid plots were not actually acquired and a corrigendum to original Land Acquisition Case No. 16 of 1995 was issued and new award was passed in Land Acquisition Case No. 46 of 2002 by the office of respondent No.5. 16. 16. When these averments made in the affidavit of the officer of the acquiring body had been perused carefully with the communication dated 12.10.2002/12.11.2002 sent by the Land Acquisition Officer namely Respondent No.2 to the Deputy Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojana, it is clear that the said communication was made on the request made by the landholders, stating therein that the request be processed and the report of the action taken be submitted. The said communication, by no means, contain any direction on the part of the Special Land Acquisition Officer/Respondent No. 2 to take any decision for release of the land in question. 17. Even otherwise, the release of the land in question is a subject matter, which is solely within the purview of the State Government by virtue of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act’ 1894. Neither the officers of the acquiring body nor the officers of the office of Collector have any power or authority to take any decision for release of the acquired land, even on the premise that there was any mistake committed in the acquisition proceedings. 18. It is also pertinent to note that in the instant case, the land in question has been acquired much earlier and compensation was determined under the award dated 27.01.1997 in LAQ Case No.16 of 1995 with respect to Survey No.502 admeasuring 3544 sq.mts and Survey No.503 admeasuring 186 sq. mts., which as per own statement of the petitioners in Paragraph ‘3.2’ of the petition was shown to be acquired. 19. After conclusion of the acquisition proceedings, it seems that on the communication sent by the land owners namely the petitioners, a spate of communications were exchanged between the office of the Executive Engineer and the Special Land Acquisition Officer. All these communications appended with the writ petition and the affidavit of the officer of the acquiring body namely Respondent No.7 indicate that the communications were between two sets of officers namely the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Deputy Executive Engineer of the acquiring body. In fact the Deputy Executive Engineer of the acquiring body has misdirected himself and mislead the petitioner for asking him to deposit back the compensation amount by making various communications with the DILR and the Special Land Acquisition Officer about mistake or error committed in acquisition notifications by mentioning the two plots No. 503/2 and 503/1 being the acquired land. 20. 20. In any case, the stand of the respondent authority that there was mistake in the acquisition proposal and the said mistake came out after the measurement was conducted by the DILR much after the conclusion of acquisition proceedings and it was found that in place of 503/1, 503/3 was acquired to the extent of an area of 186 sq.mts was nothing but seems to be a result of connivance of the officer holding the office of the Deputy Executive Engineer namely Respondent No.7 herein with the petitioners. 21. The entire exercise conducted by the officer of the acquiring body and all communications made in that regard are sheer waste piece of paper. No one knows who is the owner of Survey No.503/3, which is sought to be corrected in the acquisition notification by the office of the Deputy Executive Engineer. The entire exercise, which has lead to filing of the present petition is a result of the officer of the acquiring body being in connivance with the petitioner. 22. In any case, at the cost of repetition, it may be recorded that after conclusion of the land acquisition proceedings with the making of award dated 27.01.1997 in LAQ Case No.16 of 1995, which has attained finality having not been challenged before the competent Court of law, such a recourse was not permissible. The subsequent award, as brought on record, stated to be revised award dated 28.06.2005 by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in Land Acquisition Case No. 46 of 2002 is a result of illegal action of the competent authority and is therefore, liable to be ignored. 23. Once the land acquisition proceedings have been brought to its logical end, no further course by way of representation seeking for release of land that too by invoking the provisions of Section 48 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act’ 1894 was permissible. 24. The present petition is, thus, dismissed being devoid of merits. The authorities such as office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Deputy Executive Engineer, Narmada Canal are cautioned to be careful in not proceeding with any further request of the petitioner except for refunding back the compensation amount, which allegedly has been deposited back by the petitioners in the year 2002, after due verification of the said statement on an application filed by the petitioners, if any, along with the copy of this order. 25. 25. The request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on payment of interest on the money deposited back by the petitioners is hereby rejected for the reasoning given above, where we find that the petitioners are themselves guilty of conniving with the officers of the department, to get their land back by unlawful means. 26. There is a clear proof of the applications made by the petitioners to get their land released in connivance of the officers of the acquiring body and a mala fide intention to notify someone else’s land as being acquired land. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are poor, innocent agriculturist cannot be appreciated for the simple reason that the manner in which the applications were moved by the petitioners stating that the land in question namely Survey No. 503/2 had not been utilized for the purpose of canal is lying vacant, that too after receipt of the entire compensation amount under the award passed in the year 1997, is reflection of ulterior motive with, which they have proceeded. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are misled by the Deputy Executive Engineer of the acquiring body and are, thus, entitled for interest on the amount they had deposited back in the office of Respondent No.3 is liable to be turned down. 27. In the totality and facts and circumstances of the present case, no indulgence can be granted. The prayers as made in the writ petition are found to be wholly misconceived. The writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly.