(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.L.DAVE) 1. RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Reeta Chandarana, waives service of Rule for the respondent.
2. The petitioner's land came to be acquired by the respondent authority in Land Acquisition Compensation Case No.27 of 1995 of village Modhera, Taluka Bechraji, District Mehsana. Since the petitioner could not prefer reference application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short), the petitioner preferred application under Section 28-A of the Act. The said application was preferred on 7.2.2005. In the said application, order dated 1.3.2005 appears to have been produced by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned order was passed.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that on 7.2.2005, he could not have relied an order which was not in existence, but came into existence only on 1.3.2005. In fact, he was relying on an order dated 31.12.2004. Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati also made a statement at the bar that in the application under Section 28-A of the Act, the petitioner has relied order dated 31.12.2004 and not 1.3.2005. It appears that through an oversight, order dated 31.12.2004 was not filed along with application under Section 28-A of the Act, but subsequently, through oversight, order dated 1.3.2005 came to be produced instead of order dated 31.12.2004, which has given rise to the order impugned and unnecessary complication. Had the petitioner or his advocate produced the copy of order dated 31.12.2004, the eventuality of the impugned order being passed could have been avoided. Be that as it may, we are of the view that let the petitioner's case receive attention on its own merits rather than being thrown away on this ground.
4. In light of the above fact situation, we would set aside the order by observing that in the eventuality, order impugned could have been avoided by the petitioner by producing the correct copy of order dated 31.12.2004 and also by the authority if it had taken into consideration the fact that in an application dated 7.2.2005, there could not have been any reliance on order dated 1.3.2005 which was not in existence. In this set of circumstances, we allow this petition, setting aside the order impugned and direct the respondent authority to consider the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, as an application relying on order dated 31.12.2004. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.
Sd/-
(A.L. DAVE, J.) omkar Sd/-
(C.L. SONI, J.)