(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA)
1. Learned counsel, Mr.Gandhi, has appeared on advance copy for respondent no.5.
2. The petitioners have invoked Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution with the prayers that respondent no.5, for and through whom the lands of the petitioners were acquired, may be directed to enhance the rate of compensation. Even as the acquisition proceeding were initiated by Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act") in the year 2008 and had culminated into award under Section 11 (2) of the Act on 27.11.2010, learned counsel, Mr.R.N.Singh vehemently argued on the basis of wholly unsubstantiated allegations that consent of the petitioners were obtained by coercion, misrepresentation or fraud and the actual market price had increased manifold before and after aforesaid award. However, there is no dispute about the facts recorded in award dated 27.11.2010 that the award was made under Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act and 90% of the payments due to the petitioners were already made towards compensation even before making of the award. In fact, in some cases amounts in excess of due compensation were paid and were required to be refunded to the acquiring body, according to the award. It was also lastly sought to be contended that the lands of the petitioners acquired at the rate of Rs.175/- per sq.mtr. were clearly shown to have been sold to private industries at the price of Rs.550/- per sq.mtr. which indicated profiteering by the acquiring body. Similarly, it was also contended that within two years of acquisition of lands of the petitioners, the same acquiring body had paid much higher prices for acquisition of other adjacent comparable lands.
2.1 As against that the information at Annexure-A and B to the petition, relied upon by the petitioner, revealed that lands in Dahej area were required earlier during the year 1995 to 20008 were granted to industries at the rate of Rs.195/-, 275/- and 291/- per sq.mtr. after acquiring them at the rate of Rs.277/- and 578 persons among the land losers have been offered jobs in several companies. The lands of village-Rahiyad, Jolva, Suva and Galenda are, after being acquired, being offered to industries subject to several charges, at the rate of Rs.550/- per sq.mtr. on lease of 99 years. These factual information obtained from the respondent do not directly prove any arbitrary, mala fide or illegal action on the part of the respondent. Instead, it transpires from the impugned awards that petitioners have willingly offered their lands at the rate fixed by the respondent and undertaken in their written consent that they will not raise any dispute or claim pursuant to the acquisition of their lands at the stipulated rate.
3. Learned counsel Mr.Singh relied upon judgment of the Calcutta High Court in State of W.B. v. Smt.Bela Banerjee [AIR 2009 Calcutta 40] to submit that reference under Section 18 of the Act is a creature of statute and such reference is not permissible in respect of an award based on agreement in terms of Section 11 (2) of the Act. However, if, after entering into an agreement in terms of Section 11 (2) of the Act the owner of the land wants to challenge the award as an outcome of fraud, coercion etc. appropriate remedy of such owner lies before the ordinary forum prescribed under the law for avoiding a contract or before the Writ Court if the ingredients of Article 226 of the Constitution were present; but a Court of Reference in terms of Section 18 of the Act cannot adjudicate such question. He also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BYDA, Bagalkot, v. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib [AIR 2002 SC 1558] in support of the submission that market value of the land in question was required to be determined on the basis of the well-settled principles and the provisions of Section 23 of the Act. Both the judgments relied upon for the petitioners hardly support the case of the petitioners in view of the fact that no case of any fraud, coercion or misrepresentation has been made out on the basis of any evidence on record and only subsequent rise in prices of the land clearly appears to have prompted the petitioners to call into question the land acquisition proceedings, which have been concluded by an award. Therefore, all the petitions being admittedly identical, are dismissed in limine.
(D.H.Waghela, J.) (G.B.Shah, J.) *malek Top