Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9345/2007 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9345 of 2007
=========================================================
BECHARBHAI
BHAGWANJIBHAI - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
MAMTA R VYAS for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
Ms.Nair, AGP for Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE
SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE SHARAD D.DAVE
Date
: 22/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.M.DOSHIT)
Heard
the learned advocates. This petition preferred under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India arises from the order dated 29th
April, 2006 made by the Sr.Civil Judge, Amreli below application
Exh.132 in Land Reference Case No.10 of 1984.
The
respondents no.2 and 3 were the owners of the land bearing Survey
No.2835 situated at Amreli. Since the year 1972, the said land was
reserved under the Town Planning and Urban Development Act for the
purpose of a garden. The acquisition proceeding for the said land was
initiated in the year 1980. In the month of March, 1981, the
respondents no.2 and 3 handed over the possession of the said land to
the State Government. Against the award for compensation made by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, the respondents no.2 and 3 sought
reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The
reference was accordingly made to the Civil Judge (S.D.), Amreli and
has been registered as Land Reference Case No.10 of 1984. Pending the
reference, the petitioner moved application for being joined as party
applicant no.3 under the premise that in the year 1980, he had agreed
to purchase the said land from its owners respondents no.2 and 3 and
that he had paid a sum of Rs.61,000/-. The said application was
allowed. The petitioner was allowed to be joined as party applicant
no.3. On 17th January, 2003, the applicant filed affidavit
in lieu of examination-in-chief.
In
view of the statements made in the said affidavit, the State
Government took exception and filed above referred application
Exh.132 to question the locus standi of the petitioner in the pending
reference. According to the State Government, the petitioner had no
locus standi. If at all the petitioner had purchased the said land,
it was after the government declared its intention to acquire the
said land by issuing notification under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act and transfer of the land thereafter, if any, was
illegal and void ab-initio. The said application was contested by the
present petitioner. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge
has upheld the objection lodged by the State Government and ordered
to delete the name of the petitioner from the cause title of the
reference. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the
present petition.
Ms.Vyas
has submitted that the petitioner had purchased the above referred
land from the owners. The petitioner, therefore, had a right to claim
compensation and also to claim enhancement of the compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The petitioner was also the
constituted attorney of the owners of the land. Therefore also, the
petitioner had a right to pursue the reference as an attorney of the
original owners. She has also made exception with respect to the
delay in filing the application Exh.132 as late as in the year 2005.
We
are unable to agree with Ms.Vyas. It has come on record that
notification under Section 4 had been issued in the year 1980. As
recorded hereinabove, the said land was under reservation since the
year 1972. The petitioner could not have agreed to purchase the said
land. Though it is argued that the petitioner had purchased the land
and that he also appeared as constituted attorney of the owners, the
pleadings did not support this argument. Neither the Sale Deed has
come on record nor the alleged Power of Attorney executed in favour
of the petitioner. The statements made in the above referred
affidavit dated 17th January, 2003 were beyond the
pleadings, the same, therefore, cannot be believed. In any view of
the matter, the alleged transfer having been made after the
possession of the land was handed over to the State Government by its
owners, the petitioner cannot have locus standi to agitate for
compensation or for enhancement of the compensation.
At
this stage, learned advocate Ms.Vyas seeks leave to withdraw this
petition. Leave is granted. Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
Notice is discharged.
(
Ms.R.M.DOSHIT, J )
(
SHARAD D DAVE, J )
srilatha
Top