Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/3373/2011 5/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 3373 of 2011
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2259 of 2011
To
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2264 of 2011
=========================================================
ISMAILBHAI
HIMMATSINH RAJ - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT THROUGH SECRETARY & 4 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RAMNANDAN SINGH for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR RASHESH RINDANI, Assistant Government
Pleader in Special Civil Application Nos.3373 of 2011 for
Respondent(s) : 1 to 3
MS
MONALI BHATT, Assistant Government Pleader in Special Civil
Application Nos.2259 to 2264 of 2011 for Respondent(s) : 1 to 3
MR
MB GANDHI for Respondent(s) :
5.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
Date
: 22/03/2011
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD)
Mr. Ramnandan Singh,
learned advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners. Mr.Rashesh
Rindani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of
respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Special Civil Application No.3373 of 2011.
Ms.Monali Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 in Special Civil Application
Nos.2259 to 2264 of 2011. Mr.M.B.Gandhi, learned advocate appearing
on behalf of respondent No.5.
In this group of
petitions learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan Singh relies upon earlier
order dated 19.10.2010 passed by Division Bench of this Court in
similar circumstances in Special Civil Application Nos.9248 and 9398
of 2010, Special Civil Application Nos.11575 to 11585, 11587 and
11588 of 2009. The order passed by Division Bench of this Court on
19.10.2010 which reads as under:-
“1.
The petitioners have, invoking Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the
Constitution, approached this Court with the main grievance that
parts of their lands in the residential area of the villages are
sought to be acquired for developing an industrial estate by the
Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC), which is against
the policy of GIDC itself. Upon notices being issued, learned
A.G.P. has appeared for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel
Mr.Nagarkar has appeared for respondent No.5, representing GIDC. It
was fairly submitted by learned counsel Mr.Nagarkar that, prima
facie, some parts of the lands under acquisition on the basis
of notifications already issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 25.3.2008 and 23.6.2009 respectively,
were falling within the periphery of residential area of the
villages and policy was in fact adopted by GIDC, generally not to
acquire lands falling within 300 metres of residential area. He,
however, also submitted that the notifications as aforesaid having
already been published, GIDC was required to consider the whole
issue, as far as the petitioners were concerned, at the higher
level and necessary decision could only be taken in a meeting of
the Board of Directors of GIDC. He submitted, on instructions, that
such meeting may be held within the period of next two months and
the issue of releasing the lands of the petitioners from
acquisition will be considered at such meeting. He fairly stated
that as and when decision in respect of the petitioners’ lands is
taken, it will be communicated to the petitioners and their
advocates as early as practicable; and, in the meantime, the
respondent will not proceed further with the process of
acquisition.
2.
Admittedly, the petitioners are not paid any
compensation and no awards are made and the petitioners continue to
be in possession of the lands in question. Under such circumstances
and in view of the statements made on behalf of GIDC in consonance
with their affidavit-in-reply and recorded hereinabove, the
petitions were not pressed for any order on merits at this stage in
the hope that GIDC will take appropriate decision in consonance
with its own policy and in public interest. Accordingly, the
petitions are disposed as not pressed at this stage, with liberty
to the petitioners to challenge the decision of GIDC, as and when
such decision in respect of the lands in question is communicated
to them. Notice in each of the petitions is discharged with no
order as to costs.”
In view of above order
passed by Division Bench of this Court learned advocate Mr.Ramnandan
Singh submitted before us that the petitioners will make detailed
representation to respondent No.5 and some suitable direction may be
issued to respondent No.5 so that they may examine actual fact
whether land in question is falling within 300 Mtrs., from
residential area or not. Let petitioners may make detailed
representation to respondent No.5 within a period of one week from
date of receipt of this order. As and when respondent No.5 receive
such representation, it is directed to respondent No.5 – GIDC
to examine such representation made by petitioners and also to find
out fact on the basis of map and record whether land in question
acquired is falling within 300 Mtrs., from residential area or not
and, thereafter, to pass reasoned order and communicate to
petitioners within a period of one month from date of receipt of
representation from petitioners.
Mr. M.B.Gandhi, learned
advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 submitted that one
Consent Award dated 27.11.2010 passed under Section 11(4) and
Regular Award dated 22.2.2011 under Section 11(1) are passed under
provisions of Land Acquisition Act.
In view of above
observations and directions all these petitions are disposed of by
this Court without expressing any opinion on merits. Direct service
is permitted.
(H. K. RATHOD, J.) (K. A. PUJ, J.)
kks
Top