BHARATSINH UMEDSINH CHAVDA vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents - State authorities to pass the canal of Narmada Project as per its original map from the field of Survey No.199 instead of passing through the field of Survey No.200 of village Bhalala, Taluka Lakhtar, District Surendranagar and to implement the original map published by the respondents - State authorities and restore the original position and direct the higher authority to take action against the erring Officer.

At the outset it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the canal of Narmada Project from the field of Survey No.200 of village Bhalala is already constructed and is in existence since 2012. It is required to be noted that even Section 4 notification was issued for the acquired land for the canal of Narmada Project, which was also with respect to Survey No.200. At no point of time and as on today the same has been challenged. Thereafter, after Section 4 notification, Section 6 notification and the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, the present petition has been preferred in the year 2006 making a grievance that the canal ought to have been passed through the field of Survey No.199 instead of Survey No.200. It is too late to consider the aforesaid relief, more particularly, when the canal is already constructed and passing through Survey No.200 since 2012. Even otherwise from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the authority, it appears that initially when the tentative plan was prepared the canal was proposed through Survey No.199. However,

thereafter when the expert agency was appointed it was decided, after having proper planing, that the canal should pass through Survey No.200, and therefore, when the land was acquired under the provision of the Land Acquisition Act and notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published it was with respect to Survey No.200 and thereafter the canal is constructed through Survey No.200. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

At this stage it is required to be noted that the petitioner had already got the compensation for the land acquired in the year 2010, which was deposited in his bank account. Under the circumstances, now thereafter it is not open for the petitioner to make the aforesaid grievance.

Under the circumstances, there is no substance in the present petition, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.