Disposed

Sama Jamaji Maluji v. State of Gujarat

Gujarat HC23 Jul 2019SCA/8943/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, in Special Civil Applications, directed the State of Gujarat to consider the petitioners' prayer for payment of compensation difference based on the new Jantri price under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and to pass relevant orders within six weeks, following directions in earlier precedents.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to consider the prayer for payment of difference in compensation on the basis of new Jantri price and pass orders for payment within six weeks.

Sama Jamaji Maluji Vs State of Gujarat — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2019)

¶1

C/SCA/8943/2019 ORDER

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8943 of 2019

¶4

With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8952 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8962 of 2019 With

¶5

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8965 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9008 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9013 of 2019 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9017 of 2019 With

¶6

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9018 of 2019

¶7

==========================================================

¶8

SAMA JAMAJI MALUJI

¶9

Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

¶10

==========================================================

¶11

Appearance:

¶12

SHIVANG A THACKER(7424) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR NIRZAR S DESAI(2117) for the Respondent(s) No. 5 NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4,6

¶13

==========================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

¶15

Date : 23/07/2019

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

(PER : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE)

¶18

The present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been filed seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the Respondents to implement the Award (Annexure

¶19

Page 1 of 5

¶20

C/SCA/8943/2019 ORDER

¶21

A) passed U/S 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by paying difference of amount alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of award till payment to which the petitioners are entitled to as per new Jantri for their land bearing Survey Nos. 229/2, 229/3, 226/P2, 229/1, 224, 236, 232, 235, 237 of village Nandasar, Taluka Rapar, District Kutch which has been acquired for the purpose of Canal under Narmada Yojana.

¶22

The facts in brief are as under:

¶23

2.1 The petitioners are the owners and occupiers of lands bearing Survey Nos. 229/2, 229/3, 226/P2, 229/1, 224, 236, 232, 235, 237 of village Nandasar, Taluka Rapar, District Kutch. It is the case of the petitioners that the lands have been acquired for the purposes of the Narmada Yojna Canal in Kutch branch. Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 23.12.2009 and notification under Section 6 on 10.06.2010. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners agreed before the respondent authorities for a consent award under Section 11(2) of the Act and therefore did not file any application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer passed a consent award on 28.09.2011.

¶24

2.2 Condition no. 10 of the consent award stipulated that the land owners are required to be paid the difference of compensation as per the new jantri price prevailing at the relevant time in respect of Nandasar village. Since it was not then determined, the award made a reference that as and when the jantri price is finalised the difference of

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

C/SCA/8943/2019 ORDER

¶27

compensation will be paid to the land owners.

¶28

2.3 It is the case of the petitioners that identically situated agriculturists who are party to an identical consent award approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 8465 of 2016 and this Court by an order dated 20.06.2017 gave the following directions :

¶29

“...Concerned respondents are directed to act accordingly and re-determine the amount of compensation as per the new jantri price as mentioned in the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and pay the same to the respective petitioners - original land owners with interest and /or other benefits, which may be available under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

¶30

[4.0] With this, all these petitions stand disposed of. Direct service is permitted.”

¶31

2.4 It is further the case of the petitioners as so pointed out by Mr. Shivang Thacker, learned advocate for the petitioners that similarly situated persons also came before this Court by filing Special Civil Applications No. 18540 of 2018 where this Court by an order dated 07.12.2018 disposed of the petitions by issuing the following directions :

¶32

“6. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioners herein for payment of difference of amount of compensation considering the new jantri price so stipulated in the awards under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of difference of amount of compensation on the basis of the new jantri price as mentioned in the awards under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition

¶33

Page 3 of 5

¶34

C/SCA/8943/2019 ORDER

¶35

Act, 1894 as is done in the case of Ramji Rama Vaid (supra) and take a decision in context of their prayer made in these petitions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Needless to say that looking to the fact that the petitioners are similarly situated as in the case of Ramji Rama Vaid (supra), the respondents will accordingly redetermine the amount of compensation and pass orders for payment of such re-determined amount on such consideration within the time framed as directed as aforesaid. The Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.”

¶36

2.5 Mr. Thacker further submitted that in the case of Ramji Rama Vaid vs. State of Gujarat and Others rendered in Special Civil Application No. 8465 of 2016 revised orders were passed and the respondents acted on the judgement. It is in this context that the prayer as referred to hereinabvoe has been made by the petitioners.

¶37

Ms. Manisha L Shah, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent is not in a position to dispute these assertions. In fact she has made a statement that in accordance with condition no. 10 of the consent award by which the petitioners were assured that as and when the jantri price is finalised the difference of the compensation will be paid, such an exercise will be carried out in the case of the petitioners.

¶38

Admittedly, therefore, the case of the petitioners is squarely governed by the issue so decided by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 8465 of 2016 and Special Civil Application No. 18540 of 2018. Accordingly, in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

C/SCA/8943/2019 ORDER

¶41

orders, the directions issued in the case of Special Civil Application No. 18540 of 2018 are issued in the case of the petitioners herein.

¶42

Accordingly, we direct the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioners herein for payment of difference of amount of compensation considering the new jantri price so stipulated in the awards under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of difference of amount of compensation on the basis of the new jantri price as mentioned in the awards under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as is done in the case of Ramji Rama Vaid (supra) and take a decision in context of the prayer made in the petitions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Needless to say that looking to the fact that the petitioners are similarly situated as in the case of Ramji Rama Vaid (supra), the respondents will accordingly redetermine the amount of compensation and pass orders for payment of such redetermined amount on such consideration within the time frame as directed as aforesaid. The Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

¶43

(ANANT S. DAVE, ACJ)

¶44

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

¶45

DIVYA

¶46

Page 5 of 5

Sama Jamaji Maluji v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sama Jamaji Maluji v. State of Gujarat

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravin Bachubhai Makwana Vs Milind Torwane, the Secretary

Kantilal Punjabhai Makwana Vs Milind Torwane, the Secretary

Vasant Jamnadas Mashru Vs Milind Torwane, the Secretary

Sama Mustafabhai Velaji Vs State of Gujarat

Sama Aminabau Jesarkhan Vs State of Gujarat

Sama Unadji Kenaji Vs State of Gujarat