JADEJA MAHENDRASINH HAMIRSINH Vs. DEPUTY COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION (IRRIGATION) AND PRANT OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common question of law arises for consideration in these petitions, they are taken up together for adjudication. Petitioners are claiming to be the owners of different pieces/bits/plots of land situated at Village: Dhrafa, Taluka: Jamjodhpur, District: Jamnagar, which came to be acquired by the State for the purposes of Fulzar (Kotda-Bavishi) Irrigation Scheme under provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('the Act' for short) by issuance of notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act on 31/3/1995 and Gazetted on 4/5/1995. Consequentially, the notification under Sec. 6 of the Act came to be issued. Award came to be passed on 30/3/1996 (Annexure-C). Undisputedly, petitioners did not seek for enhancement of compensation by filing an application under Sec. 18 and seeking reference to the Civil Court. However, some of the land owners who had lost their lands under the same acquisition proceedings and sought for reference by filing an application for enhancement of compensation in Land Reference Case No.406/1997 to 408/1997 in respect of the same village and an award came to be passed by the reference Court on 9/1/2019 allowing the reference in part. Immediately petitioners herein filed an application before Collector under Sec. 28A of the Act on 4/4/2019 seeking for extension of the benefits which was flowing from the award dtd. 9/1/2019 contending, inter alia, that their lands are similarly situated and they had not sought for reference inadvertently and as such taking umbrage under Sec. 28A of the Act, they sought for award of similar compensation. The Collector by impugned order or endorsement dtd. 17/12/2020 has rejected the prayer only on the ground that judgment of the reference Court relied upon by writ applicants related to a notification of different land and not relating to same notification issued in respect of the lands belonging to the petitioners under which their lands came to be acquired but a different notification. Hence these Special Civil Applications.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Tejas P. Satta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. K.M. Antani, learned AGP appearing for the State.

(3.) Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Mr. Tejas P. Satta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners would contend that there is no dispute to the fact that petitioners having filed application under sec. 28A of the Act well within time and the ground on which application filed under Sec. 28A of the Act has been rejected being on the ground of there being a different notification under which the reference Court had passed an award which completely ignores the fact that all notifications were gazetted on the same day, i.e. on 4/5/1995 and it related to same village and acquired for same purpose. Hence, he prays for application filed under Sec. 28A of the Act being allowed and prayer for direction being issued to the Collector to extend similar benefit.