GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD Vs. GANGABEN WD/O. SOMABHAI KESHAVBHAI
LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-13
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on April 03,2017

GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD Appellant
VERSUS
Gangaben Wd/O. Somabhai Keshavbhai Respondents




JUDGEMENT

HARSHA DEVANI,J. - (1.)By this application, the applicant Gujarat Housing Board seeks the following reliefs:
"(a) Your Lordships may be pleased to review of the judgment and order dated 2.12.2015 passed by this Hon'ble High Court (Coram: Harsha Deveani and G.B. Shah, JJ) in SCA No.2484/2015 (Annexure-A) and be pleased to hold that the land acquisition proceedings have not lapsed by the provisions of section 24 (2) of the Act." Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013."

(2.)The respondents No.1 to 10 herein had filed the above referred writ petition being Special Civil Application No.2484 of 2015 invoking the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2013") and sought a declaration that the acquisition proceedings in respect of their lands have lapsed. By the judgment and order dated 2.12.2015, this court held that for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Act of 2013, the petitioners are required to show that: (i) the possession of the subject land has not been taken over till date; or (ii) the compensation has not been paid to them. After considering the documentary evidence placed on record, this court found that the possession of the subject land was never taken over after the award came to be made under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894"). The court, accordingly, found that the first requirement of sub-section (2) of section 24 is clearly satisfied. As regards the second ground, regarding payment of compensation, this court found that though Gujarat Housing Board had deposited the compensation amount with the Executive Magistrate and Mamlatdar, such amount remained with the State authorities and at no point of time was such compensation deposited with the reference court. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misrimal Solanki, (2014) 3 SCC 183, this court held that since the compensation amount had not been deposited with the reference court, the compensation could not be said to have been paid within the meaning of such expression as envisaged under subsection (2) of section 24 of the Act of 2013 and accordingly, held that both the alternative contingencies envisaged under sub-section (2) of section 24 stand satisfied and accordingly, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. Being aggrieved, the applicant herein approached the Supreme Court by way of a petition for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.9527 of 2016. By the following order dated 13.4.2016, the special leave petition was disposed of by the Supreme Court:
"Learned counsel has invited reference to the statement of taking possession, as reflected in the Award dated 31.01.1972. It is submitted that High Court has gone wrong in allowing the Special Civil Application filed by the petitioner under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It is for the petitioner to approach the High Court by a review, since this aspect has not been given consideration by the High Court. If the review is filed within 30 days from today, the same may be considered by the High Court on merits. The special leave petition is disposed of with the above observations.

(3.)Thereafter, the applicant has moved the present application seeking review of the above referred judgment and order dated 2.12.2015.
;


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