Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/12973/2009 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12973 of 2009
=========================================
MAVABHAI
VALABHAI VANKAR AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS
=========================================Appearance
:
HL PATEL
ADVOCATES for
the Petitioners
MR MG NANAVATI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondents
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 16/03/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD)
Heard
the learned counsel for the petitioners.
The
case of the petitioners is that their land is being acquired in
colourable exercise of jurisdiction. It is not bonafide and it is for
the benefit of a few individuals.
As
per amended notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act,
the appurtenant lands get inundated during the rainy season and to
drain out that water, the land of the petitioners is sought to be
acquired. It is admitted on behalf of the petitioners that once, in
1973-74, they themselves permitted, looking to the gravity of
inundation of the land of those persons regarding which they are
raising objections, to drain out of rainy water. Thus, the very
fact of the petitioners accepting that in the event of inundation of
land upstream, that belongs to the persons regarding whom the
petitioners are raising grievance that it is for their personal
purpose and benefit, the land is being acquired and therefore, it is
colourable exercise of jurisdiction, which does not stand to reason,
because of the fact that the petitioners themselves were party in
permitting the excavation of inundated water.
This
is pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that
litigation had also been filed by the petitioners before the Civil
Court, wherein, at their instance, the Civil Court had passed
injunction order that the draining out may be done of water by
providing pipeline from the land of the petitioners. The suit which
was filed in 1990 by the petitioners, being Civil Suit No.164 of
1990, in that case, the Court had held that the respondents be
restrained from insisting the rain water disposal from the
agricultural field of the petitioners without acquiring the land. The
Court had said that disposal could be made through pipeline only
after acquisition of the land.
This
is, therefore, not a new situation where the inundated lands are
sought to be protected from water-logging. What should be the method
of draining out cannot be made the subject matter of decision by a
Court because this is civil work and engineers can always decide in
that direction and expertise of the court in deciding what should be
the method and how water should be drained out, cannot be therefore,
made the subject matter of decision in this proceeding.
Further,
the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, which
was for some other purposes, but Section 6 Notification having been
subjected to corrigendum and has been made the subject matter of the
said purpose, has already culminated in final award under Section 11
of the said Act.
A
sizeable persons have already taken their compensation. Only four
persons, who are the petitioners herein, are aggrieved by such
acquisition, having not accepted the claim money.
As
and when a land acquisition proceeding reached a level of Section 11
of the Act, it would be very difficult to see that how the legality
of notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act can be gone into a
writ petition, more particularly, the petitioners have themselves
admitted that once, in past, they were themselves party to release
the inundated water through their land, it appears to be guiding
factor to acquire that part of the land to ease out water in the
event of water-logging .
In
the above view of the matter, the petition on the ground that it was
in colourable exercise of powers and malafide, does not appear to be
well justified and, therefore, we are not inclined to entertain this
petition to quash the acquisition on the ground raised.
The
petition is therefore, dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
omkar
Top