BHIKHABHAI RAMBHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
LAWS(GJH)-1983-2-36
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on February 10,1983

BHIKHABHAI RAMBHAI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Leave to amend as prayed for to add three more petitioners is granted.
(2.) This Special Civil Application is filed for issuing a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ for the purpose of quashing and setting aside the impugned notice at Annexure 'A' and also for restraining respondent Nos. 2 and 3 from occupying the said land in question. The State of Gujarat, invoking Sec. 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, wanted to acquire the strip of land, the details of which are given hereunder, temporarily for the purpose of having a road to approach the ONGC well, shown in the plan now submitted by the respondents : Name of Village S. No./ Block No. Hec.Are/ Sq. Mtrs. Name of Owner Dant-Karodi 424 0-07-50 Ramabhai Manorbhai Raichand Karshanbhai Mitha-Dharva 379 0-12-60 Mafatlal Nathushanker Jayantilal Nathushanker 380 0-06-40 Ladhubhai Mulchandas resident of Lanwa 394 0-02-90 Vishvanath Joitaram 395 0-13-80 Vishvanath Jetharam
(3.) The main contentions of Mr. Patel, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, are that there is no public purpose for acquiring these Survey Nos. inasmuch as the respondents have already taken possession of different Survey Nos. only last year for the purpose of having a road from the main road and inasmuch as there is already a cart-track in existence, through which the ingress and egress can be bad for the respondent No. 2 ONGC. It is further contended that the acquisition is not bona fide and the same has been done with mala fide intention of helping the contractors, who want to use this road for the transport facilities. Allowing the acquisition for the purpose of giving benefit to contractors to use this road, according to the learned Counsel Mr. Patel, cannot be considered as a public purpose also. The next contention put forward by Mr. Patel is that these lands are fertile lands and it could not have been acquired since there is already an alternative road for the use of the respondent No. 2.;


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