The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal seeking mandatory directions for alternative land or employment. Holding no vested right existed, the Court reiterated that the State and Company should consider requests for alternative land or employment sympathetically based on legal representation, rather than mandating specific relief.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/LPA/2244/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021 SAMEJA OSMAN ISHAK & 22 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2244 of 2017
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16521 of 2007 With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO . 1 of 2017 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2244 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES) NO. 2 of 2017
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 2244 of 2017
==========================================================
SAMEJA OSMAN ISHAK & 22 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR B.B. NAIK, SR. COUNSEL WITH MR PARTHIV A BHATT(5331) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,2,20,21,22,23,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR KRUTIK PARIKH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2 GUPTA LAW ASSOCIATES(9818) for the Respondent(s) No. 3 PARITOSH R GUPTA(7583) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 08/07/2021
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI)
This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed though the order of learned Single Judge (Coram: J. Mr. J. B. Pardiwala) dated 08.09.2017 disposed of the Special Civil Application No. 16521 of 2007- Sameja Osman Ishak & 22 others versus State of Gujarat & 2 Others expressing the sanguine hope that the respondents will consider sympathetically about the giving of alternative land or
Page 1 of 8
C/LPA/2244/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021 SAMEJA OSMAN ISHAK & 22 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
employment in Respondent No.3-Company M/s. Mundra Economic Zone Limited since they were being displaced from the land in question, which was allotted to the Respondent No.3-Company to develop Special Economic Zone under the Special Economic Zones Act , 2005. The operative part of the order of the learned Single Judge is quoted below for ready reference:
“10. The stance of the respondent No.3, at the relevant point of time, was that, as the Special Economic Zone project was only in a prenatal or pre-formative stage, it was not possible or practicable to offer employment to one member of each of the families of the writ applicants. Such a stance was almost a decade back, I am sure that the Special Economic Zone Project must have developed a lot over a period of time.
Page 2 of 8
C/LPA/2244/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021 SAMEJA OSMAN ISHAK & 22 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
The learned Senior Counsel Mr. B. B. Naik with Mr. Parthiv A. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that despite the said expression of the learned Single Judge since nothing concrete was given to the Appellants/Petitioners, they have approached this Court by way of present Letters Patent Appeal and the Court may give suitable directions to the Respondents for providing alternative land or employment in the Respondent No.3Company to the Appellants/Petitioners.
On the other hand, learned Counsel Mr. Paritosh Gupta appearing for the Respondent No.3-Company has drawn our attention towards the Affidavit dated 27.01.2021 filed the Respondent No.3-Company by Dr. Mukul Shastry, General Manager of M/s. Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited (earlier M/s. Mundra Port and Special Economic Zone Limited) to the effect that the Appellants have already entered into an Agreement with the Respondent No.3-Company on 04.10.2019, a copy which is placed on record with the said Affidavit, under which, the Appellants/
Page 3 of 8
C/LPA/2244/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021 SAMEJA OSMAN ISHAK & 22 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
Petitioners have been provided employment in the Respondent No.3Company and despite offer given to them, the present Appeal has been filed.
Para 4 to 6 of the said Affidavit are quoted for ready reference:
“4. The controversy arising in present petition centers around the Survey number 141 situated in the sim of Mundra Kutch admeasuring 1215 acres and 04 gunthas (hereinafter referred as the subject land”). The subject land was allotted to respondent No.3 by the District Collector of Kutch vide order dated 15.7.2005 after following due process of law and receiving requisite amount for the subject land. The said order of allotment was challenged by way of Special Civil Application No. 11486 of 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court by the appellants herein. In the said proceedings it was contended by the appellants herein that they had right over the subject land as they had been enjoying the possession over subject land since the year 1984. It was further contended that they were carrying out activities of cultivation and animal husbandry over the subject land. After hearing all the parties including present respondent and State Authority, the said writ petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14.6.2006. By way of the said order, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold that no vested rights of the present appellants are violated by allotment of the subject land to the present respondent No.3 and consequently, the allotment order dated 15.7.2005 passed of the Collector
Page 4 of 8
C/LPA/2244/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021 SAMEJA OSMAN ISHAK & 22 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
impugned therein was upheld. The State Government was however, directed to examine the matter for offering employment to one person in the family of each of the appellant on sympathetic and humanitarian grounds.
Page 5 of 8
C/LPA/2244/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021 SAMEJA OSMAN ISHAK & 22 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
present appellants is marked and annexed as Annexure R-1 to this reply. It is respectfully submitted that appellants have however, for reasons best known to them, failed to bring the said material fact on record of the present appeal.”
A rejoinder to the said Affidavit dated 27.01.2021 has also been filed by the Petitioners by Mr. Juneja Kasam Ramja and Para 4 of his Affidavit is also quoted below for ready reference:
“4. I further state that the Compromise Agreement dated 04.10.2019 produced by the deponent of Affidavit with Affidavit-inReply on behalf of the Respondent No.3 is concerned. I state that the same was got executed by the officers of the Respondent No.3 by stating to the Appellants that the Appellants were to be paid Compensation of the Land in question. I further state that the said Agreement was not read over to the Appellants and was not allowed to be read. The Appellants and even copy of the same is also not provided to the Appellants. I state the Appellants No. 1,2,6,8 to 13,17 to 23 who are alive and the heir and legal representative of deceased Appellants No. 3,4,5,7,14,15 and 16 have affirmed one Affidavit dated 27.02.2021 stating the correct facts and the same is produced with this Affidavit at Annexure-S”
Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Krutik Parikh appearing for the Respondents No.1 and 2 also submitted that though there is no legal right with the Appellants/Petitioners, and therefore, no Mandamus can be given, but if the suitable
Page 6 of 8
C/LPA/2244/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021 SAMEJA OSMAN ISHAK & 22 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
representation is made by the Appellants/Petitioners, the concerned Authority of the State will consider the same in accordance with law for grant of alternative land to them.
In these circumstances, having heard learned Counsels and on the basis of material placed on record, we do not think that we can issue any Mandamus directions to the Respondents to either provide employment to the Appellants/Petitioners or to grant alternative land outside the SEZ Area given to the Respondent No.3-Company. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, has rightly expressed only the sanguine hope while saying that it is premature for the Appellants/Petitioners to approach for employment at that stage and later on, it appears that most of them, under the Agreement dated 04.10.2019 produced by the Respondent No.3-Company, have even be able to secure employment in the Respondent No.3-Company on compassionate grounds. Since a Mandamus in this regard cannot be issued in the absence of any legal vested right to the Appellants/Petitioners, we can only reiterate what the learned Single Judge had expressed, that is a sanguine hope that the Respondents may consider the request and representation of the Appellants/Petitioners sympathetically. If such representation is made by them in respect to allotment of land, the concerned Authority of the State Government outside SEZ Area and a
Page 7 of 8
C/LPA/2244/2017 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2021 SAMEJA OSMAN ISHAK & 22 other(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
representation for employment in the Respondent No.3-Company is made by those who have been left out in accordance with the said Agreement produced on record, the respective Respondents may consider the same fairly and sympathetically in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.
With these observations, present Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.
In view of the above, Civil Application (For Interim Relief) No. 1 of 2017 as well as Civil Application (For Production of Additional Evidences) No. 2 of 2017 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 2244 of 2017 are accordingly disposed of.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J)
(B.N. KARIA, J)
K. S. DARJI
Page 8 of 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue Mandamus directions to the respondents to provide alternative land or employment to the appellants.
Whether the appellants have vested rights to claim compensation or employment in lieu of the land allotted to the Special Economic Zone Company.
Sameja Osman Ishak & 22 others
State of Gujarat
M/s. Mundra Economic Zone Limited
DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
