Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/357320/2008 1/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3573 of 2008
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
======================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
======================================================
GENERAL
MANAGER O N G C LTD. - Appellant(s)
Versus
PATEL
KANTIBHAI LALJIBHAI & 3 - Defendant(s)
======================================================
Appearance
:
MR AJAY R MEHTA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR
YATIN SONI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3.
RULE
NOT RECD BACK for Defendant(s) :
4,
======================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 01/09/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This
appeal at the instance of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd, under
section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of Civil
Procedure Code is against the judgement and award dated 12.4.2007
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land
Acquisition Reference No.26 of 2006.
2. The
appellant had acquired temporarily certain land belong to respondent
claimants under the provisions of section 35 of the Land acquisition
Act, 1894. The Land Acquisition officer vide award dated 30th January
1988 in LAQ Case No.9/87/G directed the appellant to pay annual rent
of Re.0.82 per square meter. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision
the claimants have filed references claiming Rs.20/- per square meter
per annum. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar
awarded Rs.4.68/- per square meter i.e. The total rental compensation
is fixed at Rs.5.50 per square meter per annum. It is against the
said decision the present appeal has been filed.
3. Learned
Advocate for the appellant submitted that the issue involved in this
appeal is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Oil
& Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sankarji Hemaji & Anr.,
reported in [2008] 17 GHJ (523). The operative part of the said
judgement reads as under:
41. Similarly,
event he conduct and the action of the then Special Land Acquisition
Officer, who has referred the references applications in more than
100 cases to the reference court, though the applications for
reference were filed after a period of more than 20 years, is also
required to be considered seriously at the hands of Government. Under
the circumstances, Chief Secretary, Revenue Department is directed to
hold necessary inquiry against the concerned Special Land Acquisition
Officer with regard to his conduct and actions. Registry is directed
to communicate this order to the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department,
State of Gujarat for compliance.
42. For
the reasons stated hereinabove,all the appeals succeed and are
allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only) per each appeal. The impugned common judgement and
award dated 15.10.2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Mehsana (Mr. J.R. Shah) inland Reference Case Nos.3780 to 3784
of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that:
[i] The
reference applications submitted by the original claimants were not
maintainable.
[ii] The
reference applications were required to be dismissed on the ground of
limitation considering Article 137 of the Limitation Act. In the
alternate, the same were required to be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
[iii] The
reference court has no jurisdiction to decide any other question
except the difference as to sufficiency of compensation in a
reference under sec.35(3) of the Act.
[iv] The
reference court has no jurisdiction to decide any other question
except the difference as to sufficiency of compensation in a
reference under section 35(3) of the Act.
[v] The
reference court has no jurisdiction to declare acquisition
proceedings and the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer under sec.35(3) of the Act as illegal and/or non-est in a
reference under section 35(3) of the Act.
[vi] The
reference court has no jurisdiction to declare possession of the
acquiring body as illegal and/or unauthorized and consequently the
reference court has no jurisdiction to declare the ONGC-acquiring
body as trespasser that too without framing any issue.
[vii] The
reference court has no jurisdiction toward compensation by way of
mesne profit declaring compensation of the acquiring body as illegal
and unauthorized.
[viii] The
reference court has also no jurisdiction to award statutory benefits
and or interest, as awarded by the reference court, as if the
acquisition proceedings is a permanent acquisition.
[ix] The
reference court has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute with
regard to sufficiency of the compensation beyond the period of three
years from the date of taking the possession.
[x] The
Reference Court has no jurisdiction to restore the possession of the
land to the original owners while deciding the reference under
sec.35(3) of the Act.
5. The
ratio laid down in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the
facts of the case. Learned advocate for the respondents is not able
to point out anything to take a different view of the matter.
In
the premises aforesaid, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and
award impugned in these appeals is quashed and set aside. No order
as to costs.
(K.S.Jhaveri,
J.)
ar
Top