IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 9599 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12690 of 2008 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 12694 of 2008 With SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16386 of 2010 To SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 16396 of 2010 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA Sd/
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Sd/
========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? 1 to 5: NO ========================================================= KHIMANAND DEVANAND & 14 - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 3 - Respondent(s) =========================================================
Appearance :
MR YOGESH M BHATT for PM BHATT for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 15.
MR PRAKASH K JANI GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MR NIRAJ ASHAR ASSTT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1, 3, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 MR PR NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 2,3 MR SAURIN MEHTA for MS ANUJA S NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 4, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Date : 06/11/2012
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per : MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. Out of this group of petitions, SCA No.9599 of 2008 and SCA Nos.12690 to 12694 of 2008 were disposed by common oral judgment dated 20.01.2010 by Division Bench of this Court, with the observations that the award validly made in favour of the petitioners under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) could not lapse for want of communication to the land owner and the award having been declared within the period of limitation, the petitions were dismissed in limine. Thereafter, some petitioners had preferred Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11901 of 2010 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein permission to file special leave petition was granted, delay was condoned and the petitions were disposed as withdrawn as the parties intended to approach this Court by way of review. Pursuant to that order dated 30.4.2010, an application for review, being MCA No.2252 of 2010, was preferred and decided by common oral order dated 05.10.2010, with the observations as under:
“3. It was, however, seen from the record that no counter- affidavit was filed in any of the petitions, except Special Civil Application No. 9599 of 2008, and no countersign of any of the petitioners was found on the Rojkam as alleged on behalf of the respondent. The aspects of delay after making of the award and the period between the date of award and issuance or service of notice under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act were not considered at all though raised by the petitioner. Under such circumstances, it appears to be necessary and in the interest of justice that the judgment sought to be reviewed is recalled so as to afford to the parties full opportunity of being heard on the issues raised and arising in the main petitions. Accordingly, the present applications are allowed, the common oral judgment dated 20.01.2010 in the aforesaid main petition is recalled with the necessary consequence that those petitions shall stand restored to file and shall be listed for hearing on 21.10.2010, as requested by learned counsel.”
The other petitions, being SCA Nos.16386 to 16396 of 2010, have been listed and heard together for being connected and having arisen from the same process of land acquisition.
2. Although number of petitioners have joined in different petitions and made different and separate averments and allegations in their petitions with inconsistent prayers, basic facts about which there is no controversy are that, by notification dated 22.01.1999 under section 4 of the Act, total 409 parcels of land were sought to be acquired for the public purpose of development of Poshitra Port Area. Thereafter, declarations under section 6 of the Act were published on 29.04 1999 and 15.11.1999 ; and notices under section 9 were issued on 30.04.1999 and 24.3.2000. Then, 10 awards in LAQ Case Nos.2 of 1997 to 11 of 1997 were made on 16.04.2001 and 7 awards in LAQ Case Nos.6 of 1998 to 12 of 1998 were made on 07.08.2001. Out of total 409 land owners affected by acquisition, total 155 land owners have preferred the present petitions, after receipt of notices dated 21.02.2008, 11.03.2008 and 03.04.2008 under section 12 of the Act. 15 petitioners are stated to have received compensation due under the awards and preferred references under section 18 of the Act; whereas 140 petitioners have not received or accepted the amount of compensation under the respective award. It is, however, the case of all the petitioners that possession of the lands in question has never been taken over from them and in fact, by virtue of order dated 28.12.2010 herein, the respondents were restrained from taking any action pursuant to the award or disturbing possession of the petitioners. According to the order dated 05.04.2011, learned counsel appearing on both sides sought time to place before the Court relevant facts, preferably in a tabular form, so as to ascertain presence or absence of each petitioner at the time of making of the award as well as the date of service of notice upon the petitioners under section 12 of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents had also proposed to state on oath the facts with necessary particulars about the amount and the date of deposit of the amount of compensation in terms of section 31 of the Act.
3. According to the data submitted by the petitioners, out of 15 petitioners in SCA No.9599 of 2008, petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7 were present at the time of hearing held under section 9 of the Act. The award was declared on 16.04.2001 and notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008. Thereafter, applications for reference under section 18 of the Act were made by petitioner Nos.5 and 6 on 21.04.2008 and payment of compensation to petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7 was made on 23.04.2008. According to the respondents, possession of the land was taken on 23.04.2008 from petitioner Nos.5, 6 and 7.
3.1 In SCA No.12690 of 2008, out of 9 petitioners, petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 7 had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 07.08.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 21.04.2008, 14.05.2008 or 19.5.2008. The amount of compensation was received by petitioner Nos.5, 8 and 9 on 25.04.2008; and possession of the land was taken from them, according to the respondents, on 25.04.2008.
3.2 In SCA No.12691 of 2008, out of 9 petitioners, all the petitioners, except petitioner No.3, had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 16.04.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 11.03.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 27.03.2008, 03.04.2008, 15.04.2008 or 19.05.2008. The amount of compensation was received by petitioner Nos.7, 8 and 9; and possession of the land was taken from them, according to the respondents, on 25.03.2008 or 21.04.2008.
3.3 In SCA No.12692 of 2008, out of 9 petitioners, 5 petitioners had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 07.08.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 19.04.2008, 03.05.2008 or 14.05.2008. None of the petitioners had received compensation; and possession of the land is not taken from them, according to the respondents.
3.4 In SCA No.12693 of 2008, out of 11 petitioners, 10 petitioners had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 16.04.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 21.02.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 19.03.2008, 01.04.2008 and 03.04.2008. The amount of compensation was received by petitioner Nos.2, 4 and 8; and possession of the land was taken from them, according to the respondents, on 10.03.2008, 12.03.2008 or 25.03.2008.
3.5 In SCA No.12694 of 2008, out of 10 petitioners, petitioner Nos.7 and 8 had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 16.04.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 11.03.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 21.3.2208, 27.3.2008 and 15.4.2008. The amount of compensation was received by petitioner Nos.7 and 8 on 20.04.2008 and 21.05.2008; and possession of the land was taken from them, according to the respondents, on 24.4.2008 or 21.5.2008.
3.6 In SCA No.16386 of 2010, out of 11 petitioners, 7 petitioners had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 07.08.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 14.05.2008 or 14.05.2008. The amount of compensation was received by petitioner No.11 only on 23.04.2008; and possession of the land was taken from him, according to the respondents , on 23.4.2008.
3.7 In SCA No.16387 of 2010, out of 4 petitioners, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 07.08.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 19.04.2008 or 03.05.2008. None of the petitioners had received any compensation; and possession of the land is not taken, according to the respondents.
3.8 In SCA No.16388 of 2010, out of 13 petitioners, petitioner Nos.1, 2, 3, 12 and 13 had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 07.08.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008 and all the petitioners, except petitioner Nos.6 and 8, had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 19.04.2008. None of the petitioners had received any compensation; and possession of the land is not taken, according to the respondents.
3.9 In SCA No.16389 of 2010, out of 11 petitioners, 4 petitioners had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 16.04.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 19.4.2008, 21.4.2008 or 03.5.2008. None of the petitioners had received any compensation; and possession of the land is not taken, according to the respondents.
3.10 In SCA No.16390 of 2010, out of 9 petitioners, petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 07.08.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 21.04.2008 or 03.05.2008. None of the petitioners had received compensation; and possession of the land is not taken, according to the respondents.
3.11 In SCA No.16391 of 2010, out of 4 petitioners, petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 4 had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 16.04.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 21.02.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 19.03.2008, 01.04.2008 or 15.04.2008. None of the petitioners had received any compensation; and possession of the land is not taken, according to the respondents.
3.12 In SCA No.16392 of 2010, out of 10 petitioners, petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 10 had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 07.08.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 19.04.2008, 03.05.2008 or 24.07.2008. None of the petitioners had received any compensation ; and possession of the land is not taken, according to the respondents.
3.13 In SCA No.16393 of 2010, out of 6 petitioners, petitioner Nos.1 and 6 had remained present at he hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 07.08.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008 and all the petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 21.04.2008 or 19.05.2008. None of the petitioners had received any compensation; and possession of the land is not taken, according to the respondents.
3.14 In SCA No.16394 of 2010, out of 8 petitioners, petitioner Nos.2, 3, 6 and 8 had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 16.04.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 21.02.2008 and 7 petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 19.03.2008, 01.04.2008 or 03.05.2008. None of the petitioners had received any compensation ; and possession of the land is not taken, according to the respondents.
3.15 In SCA No.16395 of 2010, out of 10 petitioners, no one had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 16.04.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008 and 8 petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 21.04.2008, 03.05.2008 or 19.05.2008. None of the petitioners had received any compensation; and possession of the land is not taken, according to the respondents.
3.16 In SCA No.16396 of 2010, out of 6 petitioners, petitioner Nos.3 and 5 had remained present at the hearing held under section 9 of the Act and the award was declared on 16.04.2001. Notices under section 12 (2) of the Act were issued on 03.04.2008 and 5 petitioners had preferred references under section 18 of the Act on 21.04.2008 or 19.05.2008. None of the petitioners had received any compensation; and possession of the land is not taken, according to the respondents.
4. According to the petitioners, the awards made under section 11 of the Act were never declared or communicated to the petitioners and straightaway notices under section 12 (2) were issued in the year 2008. On the other hand, since possession of the lands also remained with the petitioners, applications for reference under section 18 of the Act were also made in the year 2008, when notices under section 12 (2) were served upon the petitioners and possession was sought to be taken over. Some 71 agriculturists, with their signatures or thumb impressions, made representation dated 26.05.2008 to respondent No.2, Gujarat Maritime Board (GMB), to protest against payment of compensation in 2008 at the market rates prevailing in the year 1998 and expressed the apprehension that GMB was likely to sell away the lands to private parties at much higher rates. In its reply dated 25.06.208, GMB stated that the amounts of compensation were being paid with interest and the acquired lands were proposed to be given away on long term lease to developers for development of Poshitra Port. By filing a common affidavit of Mr.H.N.Solanki, Superintending Engineer of GMB, it is further stated that in LAQ Case Nos. 2 of 1997 to 11 of 1997, the award under section 11 was passed on 16.04.2001 and panch rojkam for taking possession of the land was made on 18.04.2001 and the award was posted/published on the village square, in the offices of Mamlatdar, Port Officer and Collector. Similarly, in LAQ Case Nos.6 to 12 of 1998, the award under section 11 was passed on 07.08.2001 and panch rojkam was carried out on 10.08.2001. It is averred by him that more than 25% of the land owners have accepted compensation and possession of their lands have already been taken. It is denied that the petitioners had no knowledge of the award. It is contended by him that:
“11. ....Even assuming that notice under section 12 was given after more than seven years from the date of the award, that itself would not render the scheme of development of the port area frustrated and nugatory in law.”
4.1 By filing an affidavit of Mr.H.N.Solanki in SCA No.9599 of 2008, it is, inter alia, clearly stated that GMB was to act as a nodal and co-ordinating agency in implementation of the “Port Policy”, according to which Poshitra Port was to be developed under joint sector as per Build-Own-Operate- Transfer (BOOT) principles decided by the Government vide Resolution dated 29.07.1997. As per the BOOT principles announced by the Government under the Port Policy, it is clearly stipulated that acquisition of land for the project would be the responsibility of the Government/GMB and the same would be allotted on lease to developers for a term concurrent with the terms of concession agreement. The public purpose for which the lands were acquired would be maintained as the lands would continue to be in possession and ownership of GMB. M/s.Gujarat Poshitra Port Co. Ltd. (GPPCL) has been incorporated on 22.07.1998 for development of Poshitra Port and private land will be allotted on lease basis to the developer company to develop the port, which will be used for public purpose. It is averred that a lot of time, money and energy has been invested in the project and such frivolous petitions will hamper development of the port project which in turn will result into national loss.
4.2 By filing an affidavit-in-reply of Shri K.M.Sheth, serving as Land Acquisition Officer in the office of GMB, it is, inter alia, stated that the awards in question were made within two years and published. It is specifically stated in para 10 of his affidavit dated 23.01.2009 that: “...after declaring the award, acquired organizations (sic) has released grant in the year 2007-2008 and under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and also have issued a notice through Talati- cum-Mantri, Positra to the claimants”. He has further stated in his additional affidavit dated 19.02.2009 that:
“2. I say and submit that award was declared in the year 2001 and thereafter there were administrative difficulties on part of the acquiring body for whom the land were ordered to be acquire. So the delay was occurred in making payment. I say and submit that because of the delay in turn the petitioner has not put to prejudice as per the Land Acquisition Act, the interest is requires to be paid 9% and 15% respectively and payment which are made is in all cases have been made with interest. ”
4.3 By filing a common affidavit on behalf of GMB, Shri H.N.Solanki has further stated:
“2. I state that, in all there are as many as 155 petitioners in Special Civil Application No.9599 of 2008 and 16 other petitioners. Over & above these petitioners, in fact the total number of farmers whose lands have been acquired under the impugned land acquisition proceedings are 407 farmers, whose lands have been acquired under different acquisition proceedings at the relevant time. Out of said 407 farmers, total 117 farmers/owners of the lands whose lands have been acquired, have been paid their amount of compensation along with interest calculated as provided under the statute. The details of said 117 farmers who have been paid compensation is annexed hereto and marked ANNEXURE-R/1 to this affidavit. So far as the details of the present petitioners who have been paid compensation as per the award, a comprehensive table is prepared, wherein all the relevant dates as required pursuant to the order dated 5.4.201 is duly prepared, which include date of publication of award under section 9(3) of the Land Acquisition Act, method of publication of said award, and thereafter issuance of notice under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, and details showing payments made, possession taken of the lands in question, as well as references filed by respective petitioners. Annexed hereto and marked ANNEXURE-R/2 is copy of the said comprehensive detailed statement showing status of each petitioner.
“3. In view of what is stated hereinabove, it is clear that, after the award was duly published, there was delay in communicating the same by issuing notice under section 12 (2) of the Act. However, many of the petitioners as well as other owners of the lands, whose lands have been acquired under the impugned land acquisition proceedings, have already filed references before the competent Court having jurisdiction to decide the same. Thus, they have waived their right to challenge the land acquisition proceedings. I submit that the contentions raised in these petitions are very much raised before the concerned Reference Court to enhance compensation in respect of the lands acquired. Thus, since the references have already been filed by the petitioners, as per the details shown in the statement/document annexed at Annexure-R/2, present petitions are required to be dismissed.”
5. By filing an affidavit-in-rejoinder of petitioner No.3 in SCA No.9599 of 2008, it is, inter alia, stated that possession of the lands sought to be acquired is with the petitioners and they are conducting agricultural operations, in support of which village form Nos. 7 and 12 are annexed (at pages 278 to 367). It is further stated that, according to the knowledge of the petitioners, environmental clearance certificate is not obtained by either respondent No.3 or 4.
5.1 By filing further affidavit-in-reply of Shri S.K.Bariya, Deputy Secretary and Land Acquisition Officer of GMB, it is succinctly stated as under:
“2. It is respectfully submitted that there are 407 land holders. That on and around February/April 2008, all these 407 land holders have been given notice under section 12 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (sic). That out of 407 land holder, 117 land holders have received amount of compensation and on the same day possession of the land was taken from all these 117 land holders. Hereto annexed and marked as Annexure-R-1 is the copy of the details regarding 117 land holders in a tabular form.”
6. It is clear from the above statements of facts that the land acquisition process which was initiated in the year 1997 has culminated for the petitioners into receipt of notices under section 12 of the Act in the year 2008 and neither possession of the lands in question is really and physically taken over nor is compensation accepted by most of the petitioners. Upon a specific query put to learned counsel for GMB and learned Government Pleader appearing for the State Government, it was fairly conceded and confirmed that no amount of compensation has ever been deposited in terms of section 31 of the Act apparently because funds for payment of compensation were admittedly provided only in the year 2007- 2008. It, therefore, follows by necessary implication that possession of the lands could not be and has not been taken over for as long as eight years, obviating payment of interest under section 34 of the Act. The nett effect of the prolonged process of land acquisition as aforesaid is that market value of the land would, for the purpose of payment of compensation, remain pegged at the value of the land on the date of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act.
7. Division Bench of this Court has recently, in
Bhanuben D.Patel & Others v. State of Gujarat & Others [2010
(3) G.L.H. 545] expressed the following opinion, after extensive reference to the statutory provisions and scheme of the Act, Article 31-A of the Constitution and elaborate reference to relevant judgments of the Apex Court and various High Courts:
“10. It is not the case of the respondents that any interim order of any Court was operating or even any litigation was pending in respect of the acquisition of land in question after 15.04.1991. Therefore, it has to be inferred and concluded that the authorities had consciously or unwittingly violated the mandatory provisions of section 12 as well as section 31 insofar as the compensation determined in the impugned award was neither paid to the petitioners nor deposited in the Court, and even an offer to do so was made in the impugned notices only after unexplained and unjustified delay of more than 12 years. Under such circumstances, the petitioners have made a legitimate grievance that, since the possession was never taken till the end of the year 2003, the petitioners would be entitled only to compensation at the market value of 1988, with interest, till the date of award in 1991, resulting into the compensation being rendered illusory and far removed from the market value to which the petitioners would be entitled as a matter of their fundamental right. It was pointed out from various averments in the petition, representations and applications of the petitioners and it is not seriously controverted that the petitioners were agriculturists and personally cultivating the land which was also within the ceiling limit. Under such circumstances, it was contended for the respondents that the petitioners were, all throughout, reluctant to part with their land and not co-operating with the authorities in the acquisition proceedings while making representations to the higher authorities for release of their lands from acquisition. Therefore, the delay in final vesting of the land in the Government was partly attributable to the petitioners and they cannot be allowed to take benefit of their own wrong. Such arguments cannot be accepted for the simple reason that not co-operating with the acquisition proceedings and making efforts to prevent the acquisition were not per se wrong or illegal; whereas no such alleged non-cooperation or making of representations absolved the authorities from their legal obligation to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Act. The net result for the petitioners, which cannot be ignored, was that the petitioners were offered compensation by notices under section 12 after inordinate, unexplained and unjustified delay of more than 12 years and that too at the rate determined on the basis of the notification under section 4 issued before 15 years of the offer. The scheme of the Act is clearly calculated to prevent such predicament insofar as mandatory provisions are made in sections 12 and 31 without leaving any room for unreasonable delay. Further provisions in sections 32 and 34 are made to ensure prompt payment or deposit and even investment of such money in cases where the land in respect of which such money was awarded belonged to any person who had no power to alienate it. In such composite scheme of compulsory acquisition of land and payment of compensation at market value, the lapses on the part of the authorities have actually resulted in denial of compensation as envisaged in the Act and vitiated the acquisition proceedings by defeating the purpose of the Act as far as the petitioners are concerned.
11. Under such circumstances, the pleas of the respondents that the lands in question were bona fide acquired for public purpose, that the respondents have substantially developed the acquired lands around the lands in question and that the land being situated in the middle of an industrial area, it is causing hurdles and hampering development of the entire area, become irrelevant. Such arguments cannot be considered to condone the glaring violation of mandatory legal provisions committed after making of the award as they have apparently resulted into defeating the objects of ensuring timely payment of compensation at market value as expressly stated in Objects and Reasons of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. We respectfully disagree with the view adopted by the Allahabad High Court in Ram Jiyawan v. State of U.P. [AIR 1994 Allahabad 38] that the provisions of the Act relating to acquisition of land are substantive and those relating to taking over of possession and assessment and payment of compensation are subsidiary, the breach of which would not result into nullification or invalidation of the acquisition. The Government, in exercise of its power of eminent domain cannot be permitted to deny to a citizen a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution by way of the last surviving protection of right to property in Article 31-A. It cannot be gainsaid that market value has a definite relationship with the time of acquisition and the very validity of the Act is predicated upon award and payment of compensation at market value within a time-frame. It would clearly amount to indirectly abrogating the fundamental right enshrined in Article 31-A of the Constitution and a travesty of justice, if the acquisition of land is permitted to stand in spite of offer of compensation at the market value pegged at the price prevailing before 15 years, even as possession of the land could have been, but never taken by the acquiring authority.
12. Therefore, relying upon the observations of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Dattatraya Govind Mahajan (supra) and in view of the gross and glaring violation of the mandatory safeguards provided in the Act for ensuring timely payment of compensation at market value and in view of the unreasonable and unexplained delay of more than 12 years in actually offering the payment and demanding the possession, the acquisition of the land in question is held to be vitiated. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 14.02.1991 of the in-charge Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) No.3, Ahmedabad and the notices under section 12 based thereon are quashed as far as the petitioners are concerned ”
8. Following the above ratio of the recent judgment, in the facts of the present case, the land acquisition proceeding in question has to be held to be vitiated in view of the admitted facts of offer of compensation after more than seven years of the first notification under section 4 of the Act, the notices under section 12 having also been admittedly issued after inordinate delay and the amount of compensation having admittedly not been paid or deposited in accordance with the provisions of section 31 of the Act. Consequently, the references preferred by some of the petitioners under section 18 of the Act, to stake the claim for higher compensation within time, and even acceptance by some respondent would become irrelevant and inconsequential. However, the petitioners who have accepted the amounts of compensation under the respective awards have to be refunded with interest to the respondent, before acquisition of their land could be set aside, for the simple reason that they cannot have the benefit of possession of the land as well as the amount of compensation.
9. Therefore, in the facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, all the petitions are partly allowed with the direction that the acquisition of land of the petitioners and notices dated 21.02.2008, 11.03.2008 and 03.04.2008 issued to them pursuant to the land acquisition proceeding are set aside in cases of all the petitioners who have not accepted the amount of compensation due to them under the respective awards which also are hereby quashed as for such petitioners. However, petitioners who have been paid the amount of compensation shall have to refund within three months that amount with 9% interest p.a. for the period from the date of payment to them till the date of repayment by them to respondent concerned; and on that condition being fulfilled the award and notices issued to them under section 12 as well as the land acquisition proceeding shall stand set aside. This order shall not affect the acquisition of lands in respect of which petition is not filed and the original holder of land has not come out to challenge the acquisition. With that clarification and subject to the condition as aforesaid, the petitions are allowed and rule is made absolute in each of the petitions with no order as to costs.
(KMG Thilake) Sd/-
( D.H.Waghela, J.) Sd/ ( Z.K.Saiyed, J.)