ORDER
J.M. Panchal, J.
1. By filing the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner i.e. Gusai Maheshgiri Hamirgiri, who is power of attorney holder of Chamariya Bhikha Kara, resident of village Aadhoi, Taluka : Bhachau, District : Kutch, has prayed to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order, directing Aadhoi Gram Panchayat not to deal with the land bearing Survey No. 510/2, admeasuring 2 acres & 10 gunthas situated in the sim of village Aadhoi. The petitioner has further prayed to restrain Aadhoi Gram Panchayat from granting any permission to any one to develop the said land, or to put up construction thereon, and from allotting the said land to any private-party or Trust. The petitioner has further prayed to direct Aadhoi Gram Panchayat to quash the decision whereby it is resolved to allot the land in favour of a private Trust.
2. The petitioner was the owner of Survey No. 510/2 situated in the sim of village Aadhoi, Taluka : Bhachau, District : Kutch. The Government wanted to acquire the said land for a public purpose. Therefore, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [“the Act” for short] was issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on May 25, 2001. Thereafter, the owner of the land was served with notice under Section Gujarat Co of the Act. The petitioner had opposed the proposed acquisition. After considering the objections of the petitioner, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had forwarded his report under Section 5A(2) of the Act to the State Government. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that Survey No. 510/2 of village Aadhoi was needed for the public purpose. Therefore, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made, which was published in the Official Gazette on June 20, 2001. It may be mentioned that the acquisition by the State Government was for the public purpose of rehabilitation of residents of village Aadhoi, who were affected in the Earthquake which took place on January 26, 2001. Though the record shows that residential units have been constructed on the land in question, the petitioner has averred that the land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. What is averred by the petitioner is that on August 31, 2001, the Government has taken a policy-decision to re-grant the land acquired to its original owner, if the land is not used for the purpose for which it was acquired. On the basis of the said policy-decision, the petitioner has filed the instant petition and claimed the reliefs referred to earlier.
3. On service of notice, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Gala Popatlal Arjanbhai, who is Sarpanch of Aadhoi Gram Panchayat, mentioning inter alia that the land in question was acquired by the Government of Gujarat for the Government of Maharashtra for putting up a township after post-earthquake period by constructing houses for those who had lost their houses, and that accordingly, the Government of Maharashtra has constructed 2000 houses on the part of the land allotted to it; whereas other part of the land was allotted by Aadhoi Gram Panchayat to Aadhoi Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Mandali, which has also constructed houses thereon. Thus, the record shows that possession of the land acquired was already taken over by the Government and the land was used for the purpose for which it was acquired. As the possession of the land in question was taken over and the land was used for the purpose for which it was acquired, the prayer for re-grant of the land cannot be entertained in view of clear provisions of Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and catena of reported decisions on the point rendered by the Supreme Court. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no relief could be granted to the petitioner on the basis of policy-decision dated August 31, 2001. Further, on October 12, 2006, Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Assistant Government Pleader, had stated at the Bar that the power of attorney holder of Chamariya Bhikha Kara, who had filed the petition, has expired during the pendency of the petition.
Today, during the course of hearing of the petition, Mr. Nilay Anjaria, learned Counsel for Mr. Neeraj Soni, learned advocate for the petitioner, has produced xerox copy of letter dated September 29, 2006 addressed by Mr. Neeraj Soni to Mr. Maheshgiri Hamirgiri Gosai, along with envelope in which it was despatched. The xerox copy of the letter along with the envelope is ordered to be taken on record of the petition. A bare reading of the letter makes it evident that by the said letter Mr. Neeraj B.Soni, learned Counsel had called upon Mr.Maheshgiri Hamirgiri Gosai to remain present to give instructions for filing affidavit-in-rejoinder to the reply filed on behalf of Aadhoi Gram Panchayat. The endorsement made on the envelope indicates that the letter could not be served on Maheshgiri Hamirgiri Gosai, as he has expired. Mr. Nilay Anjaria, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states at the Bar that he has no contact with Chamariya Bhikha Kara, who was owner of Survey No. 510/2 of village Aadhoi, which was acquired for public purpose. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the statement which was made by Mr. L.R. Pujari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the power of attorney holder of Chamariya Bhikha Kala, who had filed the petition, has expired, is correct. The above-mentioned facts would indicate that no one has come on record to prosecute the instant petition and, therefore, also the petition is liable to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any merits in the petition. The same, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Notice is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.