- (1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs; "(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this application. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, by directing the respondents herein and more particularly, the respondent No.1 -Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition, Unit No.1, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Ahmedabad, to pay the remaining compensation to the petitioner and her family members, in respect of the land in question, namely, land bearing survey No.377, admeasuring H 02 -60 sq. mtrs., situated at Hirapur village, Taluka Sanand, Dist. Ahmedabad, forthwith, in the interest of justice. (C ) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order of direction, by directing the respondents herein and more particularly, the respondent No.1 -Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Ahmedabad, to recover the 10% of the total compensation already paid to Bhartiben C. Patel and Bhaveshbhai Gordhanbhai Kakadia, and thereafter, to pay the same amount to the petitioner and here family members, along with interest thereon, in respect of the land in question, namely, land bearing survey No.377, admeasuring H 02 -60 sq. mtrs., situated at Hirapur village, Taluka Sanand, Dist. Ahmedabad, forthwith, in the interest of justice. (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to restrain the respondent No.1 -Officer on Special Duty, Land Acquisition, Unit No.1, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Ahmedabad, from disbursing the remaining amount of compensation to Bhartiben C. Patel and Bhaveshbhai Gordhanbhai Kakadia, or any other person, except the present petitioner, in respect of the land in question, namely, land bearing survey No.377, admeasuring H 02 -60 sq. mtrs., situated at Hirapur village, Taluka Sanand, Dist. Ahmedabad, in the interest of justice. (E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass such other and further relief in favor of the petitioner, as deemed just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case."
(2.) BRIEF facts necessary for the disposal of the petition are that the petitioner is having ancestral land bearing survey no. 377, admeasuring H 02 -06 sq. mtrs., situated at Hirapur village, Taluka Sanand, Dist. Ahmedabad and that the possession of the said land is with the petitioner. The petitioner is the widow of Vashrambhai Kanjibhai. The names of late Vashrambhai Kanjibhai along with other family members have been shown as owners of the land in question in the revenue record, i.e. village form No. 7/12 and village form No. 6, since last many years. 2.1 On 18/11/2009, respondent no. 1 authority issued notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act wherein it is stated that the land in question along with other land situated at Hirapur village, Sanand Taluka are needed for the purpose of Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation for establishing an industrial estate. In pursuance of the government notification dated 18/11/2009, the Circle Officer, Sanand has made entry on 11/12/2009 in village form No. 6, wherein it is mentioned that the land in question is running in the names of the petitioner and other family members. 2.2 On 1/9/2007, the petitioner came to know that the family members of the petitioner have sold the property in question to one Ramanbhai Gatorbhai Chunara vide registered sale deed no. 4475 for Rs. 1,80,000/ -. The land in question was mortgaged with the Cooperative society and bank therefore, the name of Ramanbhai Gatorbhai Chunara could not be entered in the record. The petitioner along with other family members filed a suit on 3.3.2009 being Regular Civil Suit No. 28 of 2008 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sanand for declaration and cancellation of the sale deed executed in favour of the Ramanbhai. 2.3 In spite of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, said Ramanbhai vide sale deed dated 2/12/2009 bearing registration no. 5597 sold the land to Bhartiben C. Patel and Bhaveshbhai Gordhanbhai Kakadia. On being raised the objections by the petitioners, the name of the purchasers have not been entered in the village form no. 6 and the entry has been cancelled. On 3/10/2011, the said Ramanbhai has again tried to enter his name in the revenue record on the basis of sale deed dated 1/9/2007 and the entry no. 1808 was posted. But, in the said entry, it has been mentioned by the Mamlatdar as "DISPUTED" and therefore, the name of Ramanbhai Gatorbhai Chunara has not been entered. Therefore, the matter has been placed before the Mamlatdar, Sanand and the case was registered being RTS/Case No. 17/2011. The said case has been heard by the Mamlatdar and vide order dated 3/10/2011, the Mamlatdar passed an order rejecting the objection of the petitioner which was raised with respect to the entry no. 1808 and thereby, the Mamlatdar has confirmed the entry No. 1808. 2.4 On 3/10/2011, Similarly, Bhartiben C. Patel and Bhaveshbhai Gordhanbhai Kakadia have made application on 29/9/2011 for entering their names in the record of rights being entry No. 1809. Because of the dispute arise between the parties, the names of the purchasers have not been entered. Therefore, the matter has been placed before the Mamlatdar, Sanand and the case was registered being RTS/Case no. 18/2011. The said case has been heard by the Mamlatdar and vide order dated 3/10/2011, the Mamlatdar passed an order rejecting the objection of the petitioner which was raised with respect to the entry No. 1809 and thereby the Mamlatdar has confirmed the entry No. 1809. Both the aforesaid orders of the Mamlatdar, Sanand have been challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Collector, Sanand being RTS Appeal/Case NO. 976/2011 and RTS/Case No. 977/2011 to the Mamlatdar, Sanand stating that the petitioner is the real owner of the land in question and produced all relevant documents in this connection. 2.5 In pursuance of the letter of the respondent NO. 1 authority, the petitioner has submitted one application on 5/4/2012 along with necessary documents. On receipt of the representation dated 5/4/2012, the respondent no. 2 authority has informed the petitioner vide letter dated 11/5/2012 to obtain appropriate relief from the competent court and that if no relief is obtained, then the amount of compensation will be disbursed to the owner of the land in question, hence this petition.
(3.) MR . Zubin Bharda, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondents No.4 and 5 can not claim compensation in view of the fact that the alleged transaction with respondent No.3 by the petitioner is the subject matter of civil suit and if the compensation is paid, they will become remedy less and they will not get the compensation which they are exactly entitled. He has sought to rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Meera Sahni vs. Lieutenant Governor of Delhi and Ors., 2008 9 SCC 177 . The Supreme Court in paragraphs 17 to 21 held as under: "17. When a piece of land is sought to be acquired, a notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act is required to be issued by the State Government strictly in accordance with law. The said notification is also required to be followed by a declaration to be made under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and with the issuance of such a notification any encumbrance created by the owner, or any transfer made after the issuance of such a notification would be deemed to be void and would not be binding on the government. A number of decisions of this Court have recognized the aforesaid proposition of law wherein it was held that subsequent purchaser cannot challenge acquisition proceedings and also the validity of the notification or the irregularity in taking possession of the land after the declaration under Section 6 of the Act. 18. In U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow through its Chairman and another vs. Kalra Properties (P) Ltd., Lucknow and others, 1996 3 SCC 124 it was stated by this Court that: "3. ............Having regard to the facts of this case, we were not inclined to further adjourn the case nor to remit the case for fresh consideration by the High Court. It is well settled law that after the notification under Section 4(1) is published in the Gazette any encumbrance created by the owner does not bind the Government and the purchaser does not acquire any title to the property." 19. In Sneh Prabha and others vs. State of U.P. And another, 1996 7 SCC 426 at 430 it is stated as under: "5. ......It is settled law that any person who purchases land after publication of the notification under Section 4(1), does so at his/her own peril. The object of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) is notice to everyone that the land is needed or is likely to be needed for public purpose and the acquisition proceedings point out and an implement to anyone to encumber the land acquired thereunder. It authorizes the designated officer to enter upon the land to do preliminaries etc. Therefore, any alienation of the land after the publication of the notification under Section 4(1) does not bind the government or the beneficiary under the acquisition. On taking possession of the land, all rights, title and interests in land stand vested in the State, under Section 16 of the Act, free from all encumbrances and thereby absolute title in the land is acquired thereunder." 20. The said proposition of law was also reiterated in Ajay Krishan Shinghal and Ors. vs. Union of India and Star Wire (India) Ltd. vs. State of Haryana. 21. In view of the aforesaid decisions it is by now well settled law that under the Land Acquisition Act the subsequent purchaser cannot challenge the acquisition proceedings and that he would be only entitled to get the compensation." He, therefore, contended that if the compensation is allowed to be disbursed, the petitioner will not be deprived of his legitimate right. He has drawn the attention of the court to Clause (1) of the notification which came to be issued on 18th November, 2009 which reads as under: "(1) And there for all persons interested in the said lands are hereby warned not to obstruct or interfere with any surveyors or other persons employed upon the said lands for the purpose of said acquisition. Any contracts for the disposal of the said lands by sale, lease, mortgage, assignment, exchange, or otherwise or any outlay or improvements made therein, without the sanction of the Collector, after the date of this notification will under Section 24 (seventhly) of the said Act, be disregarded by the officer assessing compensation for such part of the said lands as may be finally acquired.";