Khimanand Devanand and Others vs State of Gujarat and Others

R.M. Doshit, J.—The petitioners in this group of petitions are the land owners. Their lands have been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of development of the Poshitra port area. The petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the said acquisition on the ground that the award u/s 11 of the Act was not made within the period of limitation and that the intimation u/s 12 of the Act was sent after nearly 7 years.

Learned advocate Mr. Bhatt has appeared for the petitioners. He has strenuously urged that the acquisition in question is null and void. He has submitted that the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer was not communicated to the petitioners within the period of two years as envisaged by Section 11 of the Act. The acquisition, therefore, shall lapse. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matters of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs. The Deputy Land Acquisition Officer and Another, and of this Court in the matter of Leelabehn D/o. Bhailalbhai and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 1994 (1) GLH 32. He has submitted that unless the award is communicated, the award cannot be said to have been made. Admittedly, no communication was sent to the petitioners within two years specified u/s 11 of the Act. He has also submitted that the claim of the State Government that the award was notified in the Office of the Gram Panchayat is unbelievable. He has submitted that notifying or publishing the award in the office of the Gram Panchayat is not a healthy practice. The award, therefore, cannot be said to have been declared or communicated.

Neither of the above referred judgments lays down proposition made by learned advocate Mr. Bhatt. In our opinion, no award validly made u/s 11 of the Act shall lapse for want of communication to the land owner.

In answer to the notice issued by this Court, the State Government has entered appearance and has contested the petitions. Learned AGP Ms. Jhaveri has appeared for the Land Acquisition Officer. She has submitted that the award was declared on 16th April 2001 within the period of limitation. The notice of award was given to the concerned land owners on 18th April 2001. She has relied upon the documents annexed to the counter affidavit. She has submitted that not only the petitioners were aware of the award, they had also countersigned the rojkam.

From the above facts, it is apparent that not only the award u/s 11 of the Act was declared within the period of limitation, the petitioners-concerned land owners were also informed about the award as early as on 18th April 2001.

In our view, these petitions are devoid of any merit. The petitions are dismissed in limine. Notice issued in each petition is discharged. There shall be no order as to cost.

The sum of Rs. 10,000/- deposited in this Court be remitted to the petitioners.

Registry will maintain copy of this order in each petition.