ORDER : SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ. The present petition has been filed in the month of May, 2023 with the following prayers :- “A.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the temporary acquisition of the land of the petitioner bearing survey no. 837/1 of village Vastral Taluka Vatva District Ahmedabad admeasuring a total of 10034 square meters or any part thereof; B.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the notification Annexure W dated 30/3/2023 published by the respondents for acquisition of the land of the petitioner bearing survey no. 837/1 of village Vastral Taluka Vatva District Ahmedabad and may further be pleased to quash any further proceedings initiated by the respondents pursuant thereto; C.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from proceedings further in the process of acquisition of the land of the petitioners bearing survey no. 837/1 of village Vastral Taluka Vatva District Ahmedabad; D.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to release the land of the petitioner bearing survey no. 837/1 of village Vastral Taluka Vatva District Ahmedabad from its acquisition and to hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the said land to the petitioners herein within a time bound period; E.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the communication dated 5/7/2022 issued by the respondent corporation confirmed that it will only pay rent at the rate of Rs. 30 per sq. 30 per sq. meter per year only despite specific orders of this Hon'ble Court and this Hon'ble Court may further be pleased to grant a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to ascertain and pay rent pending release of the land of the petitioners as per the guidelines and observations give in the order dated 26/4/2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 9258 of 2021; F.That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to assess the loss and damage caused to the petitioners and to initiate the procedure of compensating the petitioners the cost of restoring the land back to its original position and also the damages and loss suffered by him due to the illegal actions of the respondents. G.That pending hearing and final disposal of the present petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and effect of the notification of issued by the respondents at Annexure W issued in purported exercise of power under Section 11 of the Act for the land of the petitioner and may further be pleased to restrain the respondents from proceedings further with the process of acquisition of the land of the petitioners bearing survey no. 837/1 of village Vastral Taluka Vatva District Ahmedabad.” 2. In the writ petition itself, the petitioners have come out with the case that the respondent ONGC had refused to revise the rent, which is in its occupation since the year 1996 illegally by temporarily acquisition of the land-in-question. A writ petition namely SCA No. 9258 of 2021 was filed by the petitioners wherein by judgment and order dated 26.04.2022, while disposing of the said writ petition, though the prayer for quashing of the temporary acquisition proceedings made by the petitioners was rejected, but a writ of mandamus was issued to expeditiously conclude the acquisition proceeding within a period of 12 months from the date of the order dated 26.04.2022. 3. 3. We may note the stand of the ONGC from the internal communication dated 21.10.2019, which was taken into consideration by the writ court in noticing that the competent authority had accorded approval for acquisition of the subject land and in the affidavit dated 23.04.2022 filed by the Corporation in the aforesaid proceedings, it was stated that the ONGC had decided to proceed further for permanent acquisition by referring to the internal communication dated 04.04.2022. It was also noted by this Court that the ONGC made a statement before this Court that it was in the process of requesting the State Government to take forward the acquisition procedure. 4. It may be noted that the present petition is the third round of litigation initiated by the landholders. In the second round in Special Civil Application No. 9528 of 2021, it was noted by this Court in the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 itself that the respondent Corporation even in the earlier round in Special Civil Application No. 3992 of 2016 had made a similar statement and on such solemn statement made by it before this Court in the first petition filed by the petitioners herein, came to be disposed of vide order dated 23.02.2017. 5. However, inspite of the assurance given to this Court in two rounds of litigations, and against the directions issued in the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022, the proceedings for the acquisition of the land-in-question had not been commenced. It would be pertinent to note that the petitioner herein had challenged the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 passed in the Special Civil Application No. 9258 of 2021 before the Apex Court in SLP(C) No. 13885 of 2022 converted into Civil Appeal, in dismissing the prayer seeking for quashing of the temporary acquisition proceedings. While disposing of the said Civil Appeal, vide judgment and order dated 20.01.2023, the Apex Court has made the following observations : “7. Approximately 26 years have passed and still the land in question is under temporary acquisition by the ONGC. If the land is continued to be under temporary acquisition for number of years, meaning and purpose of temporary acquisition would lose its significance. Temporary acquisition cannot be continued for approximately 20 to 25 years. Approximately 26 years have passed and still the land in question is under temporary acquisition by the ONGC. If the land is continued to be under temporary acquisition for number of years, meaning and purpose of temporary acquisition would lose its significance. Temporary acquisition cannot be continued for approximately 20 to 25 years. It cannot be disputed that once the land is under temporary acquisition and the same is being used by the ONGC for oil exploration, it may not be possible for the landowners to use the land; to cultivate the same and/or to deal with the same in any manner. To continue with the temporary acquisition for number of years would be arbitrary and can be said to be infringing the right to use the property guaranteed under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Even to continue with the temporary acquisition for a longer period can be said to be unreasonable, infringing the rights of the landowners to deal with and/or use the land. However, from the material on record, it appears that in the year 2018 and after the High Court disposed of the earlier writ petition on the submission made on behalf of the ONGC that the land in question shall be acquired permanently, efforts were made in the year 2018 to acquire the land under the provisions of the 2013 Act. However, thereafter the same is put on hold by the Land Acquisition Officer/State Government and the reason seems to be the higher value of the land to be paid towards compensation. Even before this Court also, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the ONGC has prayed for some further time to acquire the land in question permanently. As such, in the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has granted time to the ONGC and the State to acquire the land in question permanently within twelve months from the date of the impugned order, i.e., within twelve months from 26.04.2022, i.e., on or before 26.04.2023. Therefore, as such, a writ of mandamus is already issued by the High Court directing the Corporation ONGC to complete the acquisition proceedings on or before 26.04.2023. Therefore, if the land in question is not acquired as per the writ issued by the High Court within a stipulated time, necessary consequence shall follow. Therefore, as such, a writ of mandamus is already issued by the High Court directing the Corporation ONGC to complete the acquisition proceedings on or before 26.04.2023. Therefore, if the land in question is not acquired as per the writ issued by the High Court within a stipulated time, necessary consequence shall follow. The respondent-ONGC is directed to act as per the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, more particularly para 7(ii), failing which necessary consequence shall follow. 8. Now so far as the grievance with respect to the quantum of annual rent paid is concerned, the High Court has already issued directions in terms of para 7(iii) of the impugned judgment and order. Even otherwise, as per section 34 of the 1894 Act, if the appellants are aggrieved by the amount of compensation/annual rent, it will always be open to the appellants/landowners to approach the Collector and the Collector shall refer such reference to the decision of the Court. “ 6. We may note from the observations made in paragraph No. ‘7’ of the judgment and order dated 20.01.2023 passed by the Apex Court that even before the Apex Court, the learned advocate appearing for the ONGC had prayed for some further time to acquire the land-in-question permanently. It was noted by the Apex Court that a writ of mandamus has already been issued by the High Court directing the ONGC to complete the acquisition proceedings on or before 26.04.2023 and further that if the land-in-question is not acquired as per the writ issued by the High Court within stipulated time, necessary consequence shall follow. With regard to the quantum of annual rent payable to the petitioners, the Apex Court has noted the directions contained in paragraph No.7(iii) in the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 passed by this Court in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment and order dated 20.01.2023. We may further note relevant observations and directions contained in para Nos. 5, 6 and 7(iii) of the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 of this Court:- “5. At this juncture, Smt. Aishwarya Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would submit on instructions that acquisition proceedings would be concluded within 12 months from today. Her submission and undertaking are placed on record. 5, 6 and 7(iii) of the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 of this Court:- “5. At this juncture, Smt. Aishwarya Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Corporation would submit on instructions that acquisition proceedings would be concluded within 12 months from today. Her submission and undertaking are placed on record. The next question that arises for our consideration would be, as to what would be the probable and reasonable rent which the respondent Corporation is required to pay. Though respondent Corporation has made a show of having paid enhanced rent, it has to be necessarily held that it is abysmally on the lower side and not commensurate with the prevalent market rent and the statutory authorities of the State under similar circumstances having paid Rs.1000/- per sq. mtr. per month, the respondent Corporation cannot say that Rs.30/- per sq. mtr. per year is proximate or commensurate, which would not stand for varied reasons. 6. Hence, we hope and trust that the respondent Corporation would consider the claim of the petitioners for paying rent @ Rs.1,000/- per sq. mtr. till acquisition of the land on per month basis from the date of purchase of the land of the petitioner i.e. from 15.3.2005 till date. The respondent Corporation shall take into consideration the fact of Rs.1,000/- compensation per sq. mtr. per month having been paid as rent for similarly situated lands and after examining all other relevant aspects shall arrive at a conclusion by determining and fixing the rent which is prevalent in the market by taking into consideration the location of the subject land which is undisputedly now falling within the Town Planning Scheme and which forms part of Ahmedabad City. 7(iii) The respondent Corporation shall determine and quantify the rent payable to the petitioners by taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove and said exercise shall be undertaken expeditiously and at any rate within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. Same shall be communicated to petitioner immediately thereafter.” 7. 7(iii) The respondent Corporation shall determine and quantify the rent payable to the petitioners by taking into consideration the observations made hereinabove and said exercise shall be undertaken expeditiously and at any rate within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this Order. Same shall be communicated to petitioner immediately thereafter.” 7. It is, thus, evident that in view of the undertaking given by the ONGC and the directions of this Court in the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 as affirmed by the Apex Court in the judgment and order dated 20.01.2023, the ONGC was required to initiate due process to acquire the land-in-question and further exercise to determine and quantify the rent prevalent in the market taking into consideration the location of the subject land, payable to the landlords as per the observations made in the order of this Court. We may note that the petitioners were granted liberty to approach this Court in case of dispute about the amount of compensation/annual rent, which was required to be determined in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022. 8. In the present petition filed on 03.05.2023, the petitioners have again reiterated their prayer seeking for release of the land-in-question stating that the ONGC has not completed the process of acquisition as per the direction of this Court and the Apex Court, which was to be completed on or before 26.04.2023. An affidavit-in-reply dated 09.01.2024 has been filed on behalf of the ONGC, wherein it is stated that the prayer for quashing of the temporary acquisition stands rejected in view of the judgment and order of this Court dated 26.04.2022 in the previous round of litigation. However, insofar as, the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 that the ONGC was required to acquire the land-in-question and the assurance given by it to this Court and to the Apex Court, as noted hereinabove, the ONGC has taken a contrary stand that it has now decided not to acquire the petitioners’ land and has already written about it to the respondent No.2 namely the Special Land Acquisition Officer conveying its decision vide communication dated 23.12.2023. 9. 9. As regards the directions contained in the order passed by this Court with respect to the quantum of annual rent payable to the landholders, it was sought to be submitted that the Apex Court in the paragraph No. ‘8’ of the judgment and order dated 20.01.2023 has modified the directions of this Court and specifically held that if the petitioners are aggrieved with the amount of compensation or annual rent, they were required to approach the Collector by moving a reference as per the statutory provisions. It is further contended that since the petitioners have already approached the Collector for reference, the prayers made in the petition to grant relief as per the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 20.01.2023, is not tenable. The stand of the ONGC in its affidavit before us is that once ONGC had decided not to acquire the land and it was ready to release the land-in- question in favour of the petitioners and to handover the physical possession thereof. 10. With regard to the determination of the rent, it was further stated in paragraph No. ‘9’ of the affidavit of the ONGC that the petitioner had submitted an undertaking on 11.03.2008 that the rent would be revised from Rs. 5 per sq.mtrs. to Rs. 7.50 per sq.mtrs. w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and in view of the said undertaking submitted by the petitioner, the enhanced rent @ Rs. 7.50 per sq.mtrs. was reasonable and acceptable to him. In view of the said undertaking, the petitioners were not permitted to approach the Court of law. The case made by the petitioner for enhancement of the rent before the Court of law will, thus, stand withdrawn and the ONGC will be free to file the said undertaking in the pending case and get it dismissed from the Court at the risk and cost of the petitioner. These averments made in paragraph No. ‘9’ of the afÏdavit of the ONGC is required to be extracted in toto to understand as to how ONGC has proceeded in the matter even after the directions was issued to undertake the exercise for revision of rent :- “9. These averments made in paragraph No. ‘9’ of the afÏdavit of the ONGC is required to be extracted in toto to understand as to how ONGC has proceeded in the matter even after the directions was issued to undertake the exercise for revision of rent :- “9. It is further submitted that with regard to the issue raised by the petitioner that the subject land was acquired on temporary basis for a period of three years and the said agreement was meant to last for a period of three years, it is submitted that the petitioner is not presenting a complete picture before the Hon'ble Court. Further it is submitted that the petitioner had submitted an undertaking on 11.03.2008 that the petitioner wanted to revise and enhance the rental compensation, which was revised from Rs. 5.00 per sq. mtr. to Rs. 7.50 sq. mtr. w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The petitioner has submitted an undertaking that the enhanced rent of Rs. 7.50 per sq. mtr. is reasonable and acceptable to him and given his free consent to accept the enhanced rent @ Rs. 7.50 per sq. mtr. w.e.f. 01.01.2006 onwards. The petitioner had further undertaken that he will not approach to the court of law for further enhancement of the compensation w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and if any case is filed by him for enhancement of the compensation for this period in the court of law for this land, will be withdrawn and in case of failure on his part, ONGC will be free to file this undertaking in the pending case and get it dismissed from the court at the risk and cost of the petitioner.” 11. From the afÏdavit of the ONGC, atleast. it is clear that, it has not complied with the directions contained in paragraph No. 7(iii) of the judgment and order passed by this Court dated 26.04.2022. Specific direction was given to the ONGC to conduct the proceedings of revision of the rent while rejecting its plea of payment of Rs. 30/- per sq.mtrs. per year as proximate or commensurate rent. The directions in para 7(ii) of the judgment of the High Court was noted with approval by the Apex Court. Specific direction was given to the ONGC to conduct the proceedings of revision of the rent while rejecting its plea of payment of Rs. 30/- per sq.mtrs. per year as proximate or commensurate rent. The directions in para 7(ii) of the judgment of the High Court was noted with approval by the Apex Court. The ONGC has utterly failed to comply with the directions issued by this Court as afÏrmed by the Apex Court and simply violated the decision of the highest Court of the country with impunity, while referring to an alleged undertaking given by the petitioners in the year 2008 about the claim of the petitioners for revision of rent in terms of the directions issued by this Court and afÏrmed by the Apex Court. 12. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the present petition, the physical possession of the land-in-question has been handed over to the petitioners on 08.10.2024 and an afÏdavit to this effect has been filed by the ONGC on 11.04.2025. To the fact of handing over vacant possession of the land-in-question to the petitioners/land holders, there is no dispute. However, the fact remains that about the revision of rent and payment of rent commensurate to prevalent market rent to the land holders, nothing has been done. 13. The most startling fact of the matter is that the ONGC has not paid the rent even at the rate allegedly agreed by the landholders for the period from 1.2.2021 to 31.03.2024. As per the own statement of the ONGC in paragraph No. ‘5’ of the afÏdavit dated 11.04.2025, it is admitted that the rent for the period only upto 31.01.2021 had been paid to the petitioners. After that, the Court passed an order dated 26.04.2022 asking for the ONGC to undertake the exercise for revision of the rent, and the ONGC had stopped payment of rent after 31.01.2021. An excuse is given in the said paragraph No. ‘5’ of the afÏdavit that a letter was addressed on 12.02.2025 to the petitioner No.2 asking for certain details which received no response, as it was returned by the postal department with the endorsement “left”. The contention, thus, is that due to the non-submission of requisite document, rent could not be paid and after entire sanction process is redone, it is now to be paid to the petitioner No.1. The contention, thus, is that due to the non-submission of requisite document, rent could not be paid and after entire sanction process is redone, it is now to be paid to the petitioner No.1. This assertion in paragraph No. ‘5’ of the afÏdavit dated 11.04.2025 is also to be extracted hereinunder :- “5. It is humbly submitted that rent for the period upto 31st January, 2021 has been duly paid to the petitioners. As far as rent for the period from 1st February, 2021 to 31st March, 2024 is concerned, the respondent Corporation had prepared necessary miscellaneous bill for an amount of Rs.5,73,912/- however the same could not be paid in view of the fact that Pan Card details of the petitioner no.2 was not updated and was also not linked with Aadhar card, bringing about an inability to deduct TDS and pay the amount. Accordingly a letter was addressed to the petitioner no.2 on 12th February, 2025 to which there was no response. Thereafter again a letter was addressed on 11th March, 2025 which was returned by the postal department with the endorsement "left". Copies of the above letters are annexed hereto and marked Annexure-R/11 and R/12 respectively. It is submitted that due to non-submission of requisite documents rent could not be paid and the entire sanction process has been redone and now rent would be paid to the petitioner no.1. This has caused delay in payment of rent which however would be concluded at the earliest. 6.In view of the aforesaid no further controversy remains since the petitioners have already sought a reference with regard to rental compensation before the competent authority. The respondent therefore humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court be pleased to dispose of the present petition.” 14. From the tenor of the averments made in aforementioned two afÏdavits, it is evident that the ONGC is in utter defiance of the orders passed by this Court and the Apex Court not only in complying with the directions to acquire the land-in-question in a time-bound manner, but also in the matter of re- determination of the due rent payable to the landholders. This apart, the act of ONGC for non-payment of even agreed rent after 31.01.2021 is reflective of the conduct of the ONGC which is contemptuous in nature. This apart, the act of ONGC for non-payment of even agreed rent after 31.01.2021 is reflective of the conduct of the ONGC which is contemptuous in nature. For a period of four years, the ONGC has succeeded in retaining the land in an unauthorised manner being in default of payment of rent to the landholders. Consequently, the entire action of the ONGC after 26.04.2022, firstly in not proceeding for acquisition uptil 26.04.2023 and then in not determining the due rent payable to the landholders under the directions of this Court till the acquisition proceedings was brought to a logical end, has resulted in unauthorised occupation of the land-in-question by the ONGC. The land-in-question though has been released in favour of the petitioners and the possession has been handed over to them, but the fact remains that the ONGC remained in unquthorised occupation of the land-in-question since after 26.04.2023 as against the directions of the Apex Court issued on the undertaking given by it. Further, by non-payment of even the agreed rate of rent since after 31.01.2021, we are of the view that the ONGC has continued in illegal occupation by willful violation of the directions contained in the orders of this Court and the Apex Court. For this period of illegal occupation of the land-in-question from 31.01.2021 (and, more so, after the directions issued by this Court in the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022) uptill 8 th October, 2024, the ONGC is required to pay damages for use and occupation of the land-in- question to the landholders which is to be fixed by the Collector. 15. As per own case of the ONGC, the petitioner has made a reference to the Collector to fix an appropriate rent. We, therefore, require the Collector also to determine rent of the land-in-question since after 31.01.2022 uptil 08.10.2024. While computing the rent and damages, the Collector is required to take into consideration all relevant factors of determination of the market rent keeping in mind the observations and directions contained in paras 6 & 7(ii) of the judgment and order dated 26.04.2022 passed by this Court. The damages shall be computed on the rate of rent determined for the above referred period of default, which shall be payable in addition to the due rent computed by the Collector. 16. The damages shall be computed on the rate of rent determined for the above referred period of default, which shall be payable in addition to the due rent computed by the Collector. 16. The Collector is required to complete the inquiry and submit computation before this Court on the next date, i.e. 19.08.2025. Put up on 19.08.2025.