HIRABHAI CHHOTABHAI PATEL Vs. OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY LAND ACQUISITION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three petitions arise under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Common questions of fact and law have been raised in all the petitions. It is, therefore, convenient to dispose of all the petitions by a common judgment. While appreciating the controversy raised in the present group of petitions, relevant (1) (2) (3) (4) facts of first petition, namely, Special Civil Application No. 1961 of 1988 may now be considered.

(2.) Special Civil Application No. 1961 of 1988 is filed by Hirabhai Chhotabhai Patel and ten others for an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside order (Annexure-B) passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer (Land Acquisition) No. 1, G.I.D.C., Ahmedabad on September 30, 1987, being illegal, ultra vires and unlawful and by directing him to make reference to a competent Court in accordance with the provisions of S.18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The case of the petitioners was that their lands were sought to be acquired for Development of Industrial Estate at Halol by Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation ('G.I.D.C.' for short). A notification under S.4 was issued on May 4, 1983 which was published on June 2, 1983. It, however, appears that after issuance of notification under S.4, there was an agreement between the land owners on the one hand and G.I.D.C., on the other hand on November 3, 1983. By that agreement, the petitioners were offered compensation of land @ Rs. 25,101.00 per acre, that is, Rs. 62,025.00 per hectare. It also appears that possession was handed over by land owners at that time by accepting an amount to the extent of 85%. 15% amount was to be paid at a later stage. It was the case of the petitioners that as they did not agree to the above understanding, proceedings started from that stage. Notification under S.6 was issued on February 14, 1986 and published in Official Gazette on March 13, 1986. Notices under S.9 were issued on October 16, 1986 and the petitioners were called upon to remain present before the first respondent. Hearing was fixed on November 17, 1986. The petitioners' case is that they objected to any agreement or consent and requested the Land Acquisition Officer to make reference in accordance with law to a competent Court. An award was declared on January 6, 1987. But the applications filed by the petitioners were rejected by the first respondent inter alia observing that there was an agreement between the parties, the award was consent award and the case was covered by S.11(2) of the Act. The applications for making reference to a competent Court were, therefore, not maintainable. The respondent No. 2, hence, rejected the applications on September 30, 1987, which is impugned in the petition.

(3.) So far as the second petition (i.e., Special Civil Application No. 1962 of 1988) is concerned, almost all the dates are similar except two dates. In that matter, an award was passed on April 18, 1987 and an order rejecting the application by the first respondent which is impugned in the petition was passed on October 28, 1987.