- (1.)The lands of the petitioners being Survey Nos.135, 138, 139, 141 and 154 at village Kesiya, Taluka Jodiya, district Jamnagar were subjected to acquisition under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for sake of brevity), for the purpose of Und-II Irrigation Scheme. The intention to acquire was declared on 08.07.2005 in form of notification under section 4 of the Act. The notification under section 6 of the Act was issued on 06.09.2005. The Awards under section 11 of the Act in respect of two Land Acquisition Cases No.95 of 2003 and 137 of 2003, covering the lands of the petitioners, was declared on 04.01.2006 and 21.02.2006 respectively.
(2.)By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed to quash the notification dated 06.09.2005 issued under section 6 of the Act. It is also prayed to set aside the Awards dated 04.01.2006 and 21.02.2006 passed in the aforementioned two land acquisition cases.
(3.)According to the petitioners, the total land acquired was 28 mtrs., which was highly excessive compared to the need, as the maximum width required for construction of minor canal for which the acquisition was undertaken, was 6 to 8 mtrs. As a result, the most of the petitioners' land would remain unused. It was the further case that alternative land being available, that land ought to have been acquired and could have been utilized, and their lands could have been spared.
3.1The petitioners' case was that they had submitted objections but the authorities did not consider them and finalized the acquisition without application of mind. By incorporating an amendment in the memorandum of petition, the petitioners pleaded that the acquisition was rendered illegal on account of breach of section 31 of the Act under which it was mandatory for the authorities to deposit the awarded amount in the competent court which was not done.

3.2Affidavit-in-reply on behalf respondent No.2 is filed, wherein it is contended that the notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 24.06.2005 in Land Acquisition Case No.95 of 2003 and on 08.07.2005 in Land Acquisition Case No.137 of 2003, pursuant to which the petitioners did not submit objections to the Special Land Acquisition Officer within the prescribed time limit. The notification under section 6 was thereafter issued, and it is contended that under sub-section (3) of section 6, it was conclusive evidence of the requirement of land for public purpose. It is further contended that notices were issued to the petitioners under section 9 of the Act giving them due opportunity to submit their case, and the submissions of the petitioners were taken into consideration before passing the Award.

3.3It was further stated that in respect of those claimants who did not accept the compensation as per the Award, the amount was deposited as Revenue Deposit in the office of Mamaltdar, Jodiya. It was contended that the claimants having not raised any dispute at the time of making of Award before the Collector regarding the compensation, there was no breach of provisions of section 31.

3.4The petitioners filed affidavit-in-rejoinder in which they averred in detail regarding their representations made to the authorities in respect of availability of alternative land and the possible utilization of those lands in place of the acquired lands. Affidavit-in-surrejoinder is also filed by the respondents in which the case and plea of the petitioners for utilizing the alternative government land is refuted on facts.