JAYANT PATEL, J. - (1.)RULE . Mr.Rakesh Patel, learned AGP waives service of rule for respondent No.1 and Mr.Vikram Thakor waives service of rule for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.
(2.)THE petitioner by this petition has prayed for the appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order dated 31.5.2011 Annexure-F passed by respondent No.1 and it is prayed that the application under Section 28-A be decided in accordance with law and the compensation be paid accordingly to the petitioner.
The short facts of the case appears to be that as per the petitioner on 1.10.1981, agreement to sell was executed for purchase of the land situated at Village: Valad, bearing Survey No.196, ad-measuring 823 Sq.Mtrs. of Taluka and District: Gandhinagar in favour of father of the petitioner. Thereafter, in December, 1994, the Notification under Section

(3.)OF the Land Acquisition Act (herein after referred to as the Act ) was published. On 31.7.1995, declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act and the Notification was, accordingly, published on 15.4.1995. Award was passed under Section 11 of the Act and the land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.6.60 per sq.mtr. As per the petitioner, on 11.10.1996, the Power of Attorney was executed in favour of the petitioner by the original owner of the land. In the meantime, reference applications were made by the other land owner whose lands were also acquired simultaneously. Such references were referred for adjudication and ultimately, in December, 2003, reference Court awarded the compensation of Rs.83 per sq.mtr. 4. The petitioner herein based on the Power of Attorney of the original owner made the application on 19.1.2004 under Section 28-A of the Act for payment of additional compensation. Such application was, ultimately, decided by the impugned order; whereby, the Collector has taken the view that since there are disputes between the petitioner and the one Mukeshji in capacity as the successor of the original owner, the application cannot be granted and the appropriate proceedings may be resorted under Sections 30 and 31 of the Act. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.