Allowed

Jadeja Vanrajsinh Dilipsinh v. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) and Prant Officer, Lalpur

Gujarat HC29 Nov 2022SCA/20429/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In special civil applications under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, petitioners landowners challenged the rejection of their Section 28A compensation claims. The High Court held that lands acquired under the same notification for the same purpose are similarly situated, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the matter to the respondent for adjudication.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 17.12.2020 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the respondent to adjudicate the Section 28A applications considering the principles laid down.

Jadeja Vanrajsinh Dilipsinh Vs Deputy Collector, Land… — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/SCA/20433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20433 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20429 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20425 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20428 of 2022 With R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20404 of 2022 With

¶4

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20432 of 2022

¶5

============================================= JADEJA MAHAVIRSINH BHIKHUBHA

¶6

Versus

¶7

DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION (IRRIGATION) AND PRANT OFFICER, LALPUR

¶8

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

¶9

Appearance:

¶10

MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KM ANTANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

¶11

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

¶12

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶13

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI

¶14

Date : 29/11/2022 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR)

¶15

Though matters are listed for admission, by

¶16

consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, they are taken up together for final disposal.

¶17

Petitioners are the owners of different bits of

¶18

land situated in Dhrafa village, Taluka Jamjodhpur,

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

C/SCA/20433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2022

¶21

District Jamnagar, which came to be acquired for the purpose of Fulzer (Kotda Bavishi) Irrigation Scheme under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) by issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 19.03.1994 and followed by notification issued under Section 6 dated 28.09.1994. An award came to be passed on 09.01.1996 whereby compensation @ Rs.7.75 per sq.meter for irrigated land came to be awarded.

¶22

Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, some of the landowners filed an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference in Land Reference Case No.514 of 1996 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Lalpur, who allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation by judgment and award dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure-D). Petitioners filed applications on 04.04.2019 under Section 28A of the Act seeking for award of compensation similar to the compensation awarded by Civil Court in L.A.R. No.514 of 1996 contending inter alia that similarly placed persons

¶23

Page 2 of 6

¶24

C/SCA/20433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2022

¶25

and in respect of same notification the award has been passed by the Reference Court and as such, petitioners would also be entitled for similar compensation. However, said applications have been rejected by the impugned order / communication dated 17.12.2020 on the ground that judgment relied upon is relating to a different notification. Hence, these Special Civil Applications.

¶26

We have heard Mr.Tejas P. Satta, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Mr.K.M.Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶27

Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Mr.Tejas P. Satta, learned counsel appearing for petitioners would contend that respondent authorities are not disputing of petitioners having filed the applications under Section 28A within the time prescribed under the proviso to Section 28A of the Act and only on the ground that order of the Reference Court which has been relied upon by petitioners is relating to a different notification

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

C/SCA/20433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2022

¶30

thought not, the claim of petitioners has been erroneously rejected and as such, he prays for allowing the Special Civil Applications.

¶31

Per contra, Mr.K.M.Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader would support the impugned order.

¶32

Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the notification under which the lands of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons came to be acquired which is at Annexure-B would clearly disclose that for the same purpose and under the same notification the lands came to be acquired of both petitioners as well as the landlosers who had approached the Civil Court seeking reference under Section 18. The marginal difference between petitioners and those who had approached the Civil Court is that the lands of petitioners have been described in Schedule-II to the notification, whereas the lands of those persons who had approached the Civil Court seeking reference is reflected in Schedule-I of the

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

C/SCA/20433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2022

¶35

same notification. A perusal of the said notification which is at Annexure-D would indicate that purpose for which the lands described in Schedule-I and Schedule-II came to be acquired is same namely for irrigation scheme at Fulzar (Kotda Bavishi) and as such on this short ground itself, impugned communication is liable to be set aside and we do so.

¶36

In the light of the impugned communication being set aside, the claim of petitioner requires to be redetermined by the respondent by examining the applications of petitioners filed under Section 28A of the Act in accordance with law.

¶37

Hence, the following

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) Special Civil Applications are hereby allowed.

¶40

(ii) The impugned order / communication dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure-A in the respective petitions) are hereby quashed.

¶41

Page 5 of 6

¶42

C/SCA/20433/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/11/2022

¶43

(iii) The matters are remitted back to the respondent with a direction to adjudicate the applications filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with law by keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.

¶44

(iv) No orders as to costs.

¶45

(v) Pending application/s, if any, stands consigned to records.

¶46

(ARAVIND KUMAR, CJ)

¶47

(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J)

¶48

GAURAV J THAKER

¶49

Page 6 of 6

Jadeja Vanrajsinh Dilipsinh v. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) and Prant Officer, Lalpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jadeja Vanrajsinh Dilipsinh v. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) and Prant Officer, Lalpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anjaneya Corporation Vs State of Gujarat

Dsp Construction Company Vs Vadnagar Nagar Palika

Arjundev Pithubha Vs the Second Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer

Jadeja Vanrajsinh Dilipsinh Vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) and Prant Officer, Lalpur

Jadeja Vanrajsinh Dilipsinh Vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) and Prant Officer, Lalpur

Jadeja Mahavirsinh Bhikhubha Vs Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation) and Prant Officer, Lalpur