Decided on February 09,1983



P.S.POTI, J. - (1.) The case of the petitioners in SCA 4379/84 is similar to the case of the petitioners in the other petition. The reliefs sought are also identical and therefore it will be sufficient for the purpose of this order to refer to the facts of the first of those cases.
(2.) The prayer in these petitions is to set aside notifications dated 22-5-1980 and 4-7-1983 these being respectively notifications under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act and declaration under S. 6 of the Act. There is also a prayer that the possession of the properties should not be taken from the petitioners which is naturally consequential to the main relief. The petitioners are owners of land in Sy. No. 32/Part. It is situated touching the southern border of the village Ankleshwar. The lands are said to be included within the limits of Ankleshwar Nagarpalika. Though the petitioners objected to the acquisition of the land after enquiry under S. 5 of the Land Acquisition Act was held the Government did not see reason to drop acquisition with regard to the petitioners land. The consequence was the issue of declaration under S. 6 of the Act.
(3.) Three grounds are raised and urged at the hearing by Miss V. P. Shah counsel for the petitioners in both the cases in support of the prayer in the petition. It is said that in and around the lands sought to be acquired there are developed lands and therefore applying the policy of the Government not to acquire lands near such developed lands for the purpose of housing the present acquisition would not be permisible. The acquisition is evidently for the purpose of the Housing Board and it is said that the Housing Board must restrict its activities of construction after acquisition invoking the Land Acquisition Act to areas where already activities of comstruction for housing have not been conmenced. It is the petitioners case that Ankleshwar village is an area fully occupied by houses and since the plot in Sy. No. 32 sought to be acquired is situated adjoining such an area it would contravene the policy of the Government to acquire such land and such contravention would not be permissible as it will be discriminatory as held in the decisions in Maganbhai Vanarshibhai v. State (XVI 1975 GLR 839) and Hintedrakumar v. State (XXI 1980 GLR 83). It is then contended that acquisition is permissible only for an existing need or a need in the immediate future that the Gujarat Housing Board had started proceedings for acquisition of other land under an earlier notification and that land has itself not been fully utilised and therefore the present acquisition cannot be an acquisition justifiable as one either for an existing need or a need in the immediate future. The third limb of the argument of the petitioners counsel is that the acquisition must be found to be mala fide. In support of this plea it is said that the motive force behind such acquisition proceedings commenced in respect of Sy. No. 32 was the design of the President and Vice-President of the Ankleshwar Nagarpalika who had caused properties to be purchased in the names of their relatives in and around the plot sought to be acquired so that they may be able to dispose of such properties at a high price when Sy. No. 32 became developed land. Particular mention is made about the President one Mr. Jani having so acquired in the name of his wife and son-in-law land in Sy. No. 6.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.