Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/801/2003 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 801 of 2003
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 805 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
`
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
GENERAL
MANAGER - Appellant(s)
Versus
SP.LAND
ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AJAY R MEHTA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR SHIVANG SHUKLA, AGP for Defendant(s) :
1,
RULE SERVED BY DS for Defendant(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 29/09/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. These
appeals at the instance of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation, the
Acquiring Body, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read
with section 96 of Civil Procedure Code are against the judgment and
award dated 13/6/2001 passed by learned Extra Assistant Judge,
Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference No.1595 to 1599 of 1997.
2. The
State had acquired certain land on temporary basis of the original
claimants under section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. After
following procedure the Land Acquisition Officer vide his order dated
30/8/1993 awarded crop compensation and also awarded rental
compensation at the rate of Rs.110/- per Are per year i.e. Rs.1.10
per sq. mtr. per year. Feeling aggrieved by the said decision the
claimants filed references before the learned Extra Assistant Judge,
Mehsana claiming additional rental compensation at the rate of
Rs.700/- per Are and further crop compensation. After hearing the
arguments, the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana has awarded
additional compensation at the rate of Rs.190/- per Are per year and
further awarded 20% additional crop compensation. It is against the
said awards the present appeals have been filed.
3. 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
Judgement 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 judgment 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.??
4. 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.
5. In
the premises aforesaid, these appeals are allowed. The judgment and
award impugned in these appeals are quashed and set aside. No order
as to costs.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
(ila)
Top