AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.M. Thaker, J.—The petitioner, a public charitable trust, claims to be owner of land situate in ward No. 7, city Survey No. 4543 in Surat
city. The petitioner trust, through its trustee, has challenged, by this petition, an award dated 20th May 2009 passed u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 {hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''} on the ground that the award is malicious, capricious and illegal. The petitioner trust has also
challenged the notice dated 22nd June 2009 issued by the respondent Municipal Corporation requiring that the possession of the lands in question
should be handed over to the respondent Corporation on or before 7th July 2009.
Heard Mr. Nakrani learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. P.G. Desai, learned senior counsel with Mr. Pandya, learned advocate, for
respondent corporation.
Be it noted that the very same award dated 20th May 2009 is also challenged by the tenants on the said land, by way of writ petition being
Special Civil Application No. 7129 of 2009 which has been disposed of by order dated 13th January 2010. The learned advocate for the
petitioner has made common submissions with regard to Special Civil Application No. 7129 of 2009, Special Civil Application No. 7572 of 2009
and Special Civil Application No. 7574 of 2009. So as to avoid repetition of the factual background regarding the impugned award and the notice
impugned in the present petition (which has been recorded in the order dated 13.1.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7129 of 2009),
the same are not reiterated.
In present petition, the petitioner has relied on the order dated 14th December 2007 by which the petitions being Special Civil Application Nos.
5330 of 2007 and 13795 of 2007 (of which reference has been made in the above said order dated 13.1.2010 passed in Special Civil Application
No. 7129 of 2009), were withdrawn with a view to making representation for allotment of alternative land. The petitioner trust has also relied upon
the order granting ad-interim relief passed on 14th July 2009 in above mentioned Special Civil Application No. 7129 of 2009.
As noted in the order dated 13.1.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7129 of 2009, the notifications u/s 4 and 6 of the Act have now
culminated into award dated 20th May 2009 passed u/s 11 of the Act. Besides this, the challenge against the said notifications, at the behest of the
tenants, has earlier failed.
From the averments in present petition and/or in Special Civil Application No. 7129 of 2009 it does not come out clearly as to whether the
petitioner trust had earlier independently challenged the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act or not. In any case, after the rendition of the
award u/s 11 pursuant to the notifications, any challenge by the petitioner against the acquisition has no relevance.
The petitioner trust has claimed that it has shown willingness to give possession of the land upto 60% of the entire parcel of land in question.
When the respondent corporation made the acquisition to realize the purpose of reservation in the final development plan the contention, at this
belated stage, that the District Centre cannot be termed as ''Public Purpose'', is not only untenable but misconceived also. Any challenge was not
raised by the land owner against the development plan at the relevant time which has culminated in Final Development Plan 1986. After rendition
of the award and when the respondent Corporation has already deposited the compensation amount and issued notice seeking possession of the
lands in question, in view of Section 16 of the Act the lands, vest in the Corporation free from all encumbrances.
During the hearing it has come out from the submissions of Mr. Nakrani, learned advocate, that reference u/s 18 seeking enhancement in the
compensation has been made at the best of the land owner. Therefore also, there is now no justification to entertain any challenge, at the best of
the land owner, against the impugned award. Further, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any ground or material to justify, let alone
substantiate, the allegation that the impugned award is malicious and capricious or illegal. No ground has been made out.
For the aforesaid reasons and the reasons recorded in order dated 13.1.2010 passed in Special Civil Application No. 7129 of 2009, the
petition does not deserve to be entertained. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. Notice is discharged.
Ad-interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
In view of disposal of main petition, Civil Application does not survive. Civil application stands disposed of.