Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/7572/2009 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7572 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
&
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
HAJI
YUSUF MOHAMAD ABOWATH TRUST - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DK NAKRANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS MONALI BHATT AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 3.
MR KAUSHAL D
PANDYA for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 13/01/2010
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER)
The
petitioner, a public charitable trust, claims to be owner of land
situate in ward No.7, city Survey No.4542 in Surat city. The
petitioner trust, through its trustee, has challenged, by this
petition, an award dated 20th May 2009 passed under
Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 {hereinafter referred to
as the Act } on the ground that the award is malicious,
capricious and illegal. The petitioner trust has also challenged the
notice dated 22nd June 2009 issued by the respondent
Municipal Corporation requiring that the possession of the lands in
question should be handed over to the respondent Corporation on or
before 7th July 2009.
Heard
Mr.Nakrani learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr.P.G.Desai,
learned senior counsel with Mr.Pandya, learned advocate, for
respondent corporation.
Be
it noted that the very same award dated 20th May 2009 is
also challenged by the tenants on the said land, by way of writ
petition being Special Civil Application No.7129 of 2009 which has
been disposed of by order dated 13th January 2010. The
learned advocate for the petitioner has made common submissions with
regard to Special Civil Application No.7129 of 2009, Special Civil
Application No.7572 of 2009 and Special Civil Application No.7574 of
2009. So as to avoid repetition of the factual background regarding
the impugned award and the notice impugned in the present petition
(which has been recorded in the order dated 13.1.2010 passed in
Special Civil Application No.7129 of 2009), the same are not
reiterated.
In
present petition, the petitioner has relied on the order dated 14th
December 2007 by which the petitions being Special Civil Application
Nos.5330 of 2007 and 13795 of 2007 (of which reference has been made
in the above said order dated 13.1.2010 passed in Special Civil
Application No.7129 of 2009), were withdrawn with a view to making
representation for allotment of alternative land. The petitioner
trust has also relied upon the order granting ad-interim relief
passed on 14th July 2009 in above mentioned Special Civil
Application No.7129 of 2009.
As
noted in the order dated 13.1.2010 passed in Special Civil
Application No.7129 of 2009, the notifications under Section 4 and 6
of the Act have now culminated into award dated 20th May
2009 passed under Section 11 of the Act. Besides this, the challenge
against the said notifications, at the behest of the tenants, has
earlier failed.
From
the averments in present petition and/or in Special Civil Application
No.7129 of 2009 it does not come out clearly as to whether the
petitioner trust had earlier independently challenged the
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act or not. In any case,
after the rendition of the award under Section 11 pursuant to the
notifications, any challenge by the petitioner against the
acquisition has no relevance.
The
petitioner trust has claimed that it has shown willingness to give
possession of the land upto 60% of the entire parcel of land in
question. When the respondent corporation made the acquisition to
realize the purpose of reservation in the final development plan the
contention, at this belated stage, that the District Centre cannot be
termed as Public Purpose , is not only untenable but
misconceived also. Any challenge was not raised by the land owner
against the development plan at the relevant time which has
culminated in Final Development Plan 1986. After rendition of the
award and when the respondent Corporation has already deposited the
compensation amount and issued notice seeking possession of the lands
in question, in view of Section 16 of the Act the lands, vest in the
Corporation free from all encumbrances.
During
the hearing it has come out from the submissions of Mr. Nakrani,
learned advocate, that reference under Section 18 seeking enhancement
in the compensation has been made at the best of the land owner.
Therefore also, now there is no justification to entertain any
challenge, at the best of the land owner, against the impugned award.
Further, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any ground or
material to justify, let alone substantiate, the allegation that the
impugned award is malicious and capricious or illegal. No ground has
been made out.
For
the aforesaid reasons and the reasons recorded in order dated
13.1.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No.7129 of 2009, the
petition does not deserve to be entertained. The petition, therefore,
fails and is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Notice is
discharged. Ad-interim relief granted earlier stands vacated
forthwith.
[Ms.
R.M.Doshit, J.]
[K.M.Thaker,
J.]
kdc
Top