Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2992/2008 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2992 of 2008
With
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2993 of 2008
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2995 of 2008
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
-Yes.
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ? -No.
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
-No.
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 ? -No.
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No.
=========================================================
GENERAL
MANAGER - Appellant(s)
Versus
PATEL
RAMANBHAI GORDHANBHAI & 4 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AJAY R MEHTA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
RULE NOT RECD BACK for Defendant(s) : 1 - 3.
MS
TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Defendant(s) :
4,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 04/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
These
appeals at the instance of State Government under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code
are against the judgment and award dated 12/8/2005 passed by the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in several
reference cases.
The
appellant had acquired certain land on temporary basis of the
original claimants under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). After following
procedure the Land Acquisition Officer vide his order dated
30/1/1988 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.0.60 per sq. mtr.
in LAQ Case No.16/87/G per year. Feeling aggrieved by the said
decision, the claimants filed references before the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar claiming additional rental
compensation at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq. mtr. per year. The
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar has awarded
additional compensation at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq. mtr. per
annum. It is against the said award the present appeals have been
filed.
Learned
Advocate for the appellant submitted that the issue involved in
these appeals 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
Judgment reads as under:
?S41. 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.??
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, these appeals are allowed. The judgment and
award impugned in these appeals is quashed and set aside. No order
as to costs.
The
office is directed to send the Record and Proceedings forthwith.
(K.S.Jhaveri,
J.)
(ila)
Top