KANTABEN KANTILAL PATEL & ANR vs STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS

. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and order quashing and setting aside of land acquisition proceedings of survey nos. 406, 211, 214/1, 212/1 and 215 of village Rajpur, Tal: Sidhpur, Dist. Patan vide LAQ Case No. 9 of 1964 dated 10.01.1967.

. The facts leading to the present Special Civil Application in nutshell are as under: 2.1. That in the year 1964 the land bearing Survey No. 214/1 was owned in the name of one Bhagvandas Jivadas Patel. The same came to be acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 in the year 1964 for the public purpose and for Sidhpur Municipality for disposal of the solid waste. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1964. The others adjacent lands also came to be acquired for the same purpose. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and the award under Section 11 of the Act came to be declared. That most of the lands owners accepted the compensation under the protest. With respect to the land in question, acquiring body deposited the amount with the treasury / Mamlatdar in the year 1967 itself, as the original land owners refused to accept the amount of compensation. That the possession of the land in question was taken over by the acquiring bodyNagarpalika in the year 1967 itself. That since 1967, the Nagarpalika seems to be in possession of the lands in question and other lands acquired. It appears that there was dispute with respect to the ownership between the husband of the petitioner no.1Kantaben Kantilal Patel original land owners and at the relevant time the land in question was in the name of original land owners Bhagvandas Jivadas Patel. It appears that thereafter the name of Kantilal was mutated in the revenue record in the second part. That thereafter, the petitioner no.1 preferred Special Civil Application No.15552 of 2012 before this Court with a prayer to quash and set aside the acquisition proceedings of the land bearing Survey no. 214/1 and / or to withdraw the said proceedings and to handover the possession to the petitioners. That said Special Civil Application came to be withdrawn in the year 2013 with a view to move the State Government for withdrawal of the acquisition. Without expressing any opinion on the maintainability of the said aspect, the permission was granted and the said Special Civil Application came to be disposed of as withdrawn. That thereafter, some of the original owners of the adjacent land approached this Court by way of Special Civil Application No. 18568 of 2014 for an appropriate writ, direction and order to declare the acquisition proceedings lapse in view of provisions of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. That the said Special Civil Application came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court with a observation that the said petition is nothing but to take undue advantage from the Government and same is nothing but abuse of process of law. That thereafter, the petitioners have preferred present Special Civil Application in the year 2016 for the aforesaid reliefs. However, it is required to be noted that so far as petitioners are concerned, they are concerned with only survey no.214/1 and despite the same, present petition is preferred with respect to other lands.

. It is required to be noted that by way of amendment and with a view to take undue advantage of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the petitioners have prayed to declare the acquisition proceedings in view of subsection( 2) of Section 24 of the Act contending inter alia that actual and physical possession with respect to the land in question has not been taken over by the acquiring body and that no compensation has been paid and was at the relevant time deposited with the Reference Court.

. Shri Patel, learned advocate for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that as neither the possession of the land in question was taken over nor any compensation was deposited in the Court / Reference Court and that still the petitioners are in possession of the acquired lands in question, considering subsection( 2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the land acquisition proceedings are deemed to have been lapsed.

. Present petition is vehemently opposed by Shri Maharshi Patel, learned advocate for the respondent no.2Nagarpalika and Shri Rohan Yagnik, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State. Affidavit in reply is filed specifically denying that the possession of the land in question is not taken over by the acquiring body. It is specifically stated and mentioned that the possession of the land in question and other acquired lands have been taken over in the year 1967 and since then the land in question and other adjacent acquired lands are used by the Nagarpalika for solid waste and that the Nagarpalika is in possession of the land in question and other acquired lands. Referring to the averments made in the earlier petition being Special Civil Application No.15552 of 2012 which was filed by the petitioner no.1, it is submitted in the said petition that the very petitioners had specifically admitted that the possession has already been taken over and in fact it was prayed to return the possession to them. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioners have not come with clean hand and only with a view to get undue advantage of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 a false statement has been made that they are in possession of the land in question. It is submitted that at the relevant time the compensation was paid and the acquiring body deposited the same with the Mamlatdar / Treasury as the then original land owners refused to accept the compensation. It is submitted that the aforesaid has happened in 1967. It is submitted that therefore, the petitioners cannot be now permitted to take undue advantage of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Making above submissions, it is requested to dismiss the present petition.

. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law and only with a view to take disadvantage of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is required to be noted that present petition is a second round of litigation. That the petitioner no.1 earlier preferred Special Civil Application before this Court for the very relief i.e. to set aside the acquisition proceedings and / or to withdraw the acquisition proceedings, which came to be withdrawn by the petitioner no.1. That thereafter the present petition has been preferred. It is to be noted that initially the very prayer was made in the present petition which was there in the earlier round of litigation. However, thereafter only with a view to get undue advantage of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 by way of amendment the petitioners have prayed that as they are in possession of the land in question and compensation has not been deposited in the Reference Court, considering subsection (2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the acquisition proceedings have lapsed. However, in the earlier petition being Special Civil Application No.15552 of 2012, petitioner no.1 has specifically admitted that the possession of the land in question has already been taken over. In fact, the petitioner no.1 prayed to return the possession of the land in question. Under the circumstances, the petitioners have not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts and have made the false statement in the present petition that they are in possession of the land in question. In the earlier petition, it is specifically averred in the para 5 that "it is in the larger interest to drop the said proceedings and acquisition and to handover the possession to the petitioners by way of refunding the amount with interest and costs to the respondent authority". Under the circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to discretionary relief in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6.1. Even otherwise, from the material on record, it appears that the Nagarpalika is in possession of the land in question since 1967 and that they are using the same for solid waste. It also appears that at the relevant time when the land acquisition proceedings was initiated, land was in the name of original land owner and at the relevant time there was dispute between the husband of the petitioner no.1 and original land owner. It appears that in the year 1967 the compensation as per award was offered but original land owners seems to have refused to accept the same and therefore, the same was deposited in the year 1967 with the Treasury / Mamlatdar. At no point of time, till 2016, any grievance was made either by the original land owner or even by the husband of the petitioner no.1 or even by the petitioners. It appears that thereafter only with a view to get disadvantage of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 now such a grievance is made. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the land acquisition has lapsed under subsection( 2) of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Notice is discharged.