AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jayant Patel, J.—In all these matters, challenge by the concerned petitioners is against the order dated 07.09.2012 passed by respondent No. 1, whereby objections of the concerned petitioners are not accepted by respondent No. 1. We have heard Mr. Nisarg Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in all the petitions. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioners had applied for copies of certain documents at the time when oral hearing was fixed. However, those documents were not supplied. It is also submitted that adjournment was prayed, which has also not been granted. Under the circumstances, the competent authority, respondent No. 1 herein, ought not to have decided the objections and, therefore, these petitions.
Learned counsel further submitted that the essential purpose of preferring the petitions is that compensation in respect of the plots in question of the petitioners, which are sought to be acquired, should be made available to them and not to respondent No. 3, who has raised objections in spite of the fact that, by registered sale deed the plots in question have been transferred in favour of the concerned petitioners. He submitted that if compensation is not paid to the petitioners, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and injury and, therefore, this Court may issue suitable directions.
It is an admitted position that objections of the petitioners, dated 30.4.2012, a copy whereof is produced at Annexure-F, were submitted by the petitioners. Not only that, but it is also an admitted fact that hearing was fixed on 09.08.2012 and the petitioners did remain present on that date. Therefore, it is not a matter where opportunity has not been given to the petitioners and respondent No. 1 has proceeded ex-parte without giving any opportunity to the petitioners to file objections and of hearing. The contention that copies of certain documents were applied for and till those documents were supplied adjournment was prayed, in our view, is a camouflage/eyewash inasmuch as copy of the notification u/s 20-A is produced by the petitioners on page 10 of the compilation, which would mean that the petitioners are having copy of that notification. The second document applied was gazette publication dated 04.04.2012 of the very notification u/s 20-A of the Railways Act. Once publication in newspaper of the said notification is available, copy of the gazette publication would hardly be of any consequence for raising objection. The third document of which copy was applied related to the plan for acquisition of the land bearing survey/block Nos. 14/1 and 14/2. If the said aspect is considered with the notification u/s 20-A, a copy whereof is produced on page 10, it has been stated in the said notification as under:
The land plans and other details of the land covered under this notification are available, and can be inspected by the interested person at the aforesaid office of the competent authority.
Therefore, when such documents were already available for inspection to the public at large, including the petitioners, those documents, even if not supplied, would not cause any prejudice.
The principal objection of the petitioners appears to be that the land is purchased by them and if acquired it will cause irreparable loss and injury and, in any case, compensation is to be paid to them. If the said objection is considered in light of the order dated 07.09.2012 passed by respondent No. 1, it appears that those objections are considered. He has recorded the fact that relevant documents with the objections were produced and he has also recorded the aspect that the petitioners have demanded compensation. Under these circumstances, when the objections are considered and thereafter not accepted, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of respondent No. 1.
The apprehension voiced by the petitioners that compensation will not be made available to the petitioners is premature and ill-founded at this stage inasmuch as in the very impugned order at para 5, it has been mentioned that the procedure u/s 20-F shall be followed and as per section 20-F, an opportunity shall be given to the interested person to claim compensation, oral hearing shall also be given and thereafter the amount of compensation shall be fixed. All such steps have not reached so far, since uptill now notification u/s 20-D is also not published. Hence, no opinion deserves to be expressed at this stage, except observing that in the event there is any lapse on the part of the competent authority for considering the case for compensation or otherwise, the petitioners may voice their grievance at the appropriate time and at that stage rights and contentions to that extent of the concerned petitioners as well as of the respondent shall remain open. Under the circumstances, no case is made out for interference. Hence all the petitions are disposed of accordingly.