RAVINDRA v. GHUGE &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON
Facts
( 1 ) wp 3840.23IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 3840 OF 2023 Niranjan S/o Omprakash Agrawal,Age: 49 years, Occu: Agri. & Business,R/o B.G. Agrawal Memorial EnglishMedium School, Chinchpada,Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar....PETITIONERV/s.1. The Competent Authority and orSpecial Land Acquisition Officer(National Highway No.6) /Assistant Collector, Nandurbar,Tq. & Dist. Nandurbar.2.National Highway Authority of India,Through Project Director,NHAI-PIU, Dhule, Mansaram Nagar,Near Circuit House, Sakri Road,Dhule – 424 002.3.Deputy Superintendent of Land Record,Nandurbar Tal. & Dist. Nandurbar.4.The learned Collector,Nandurbar.... RESPONDENTS......Mr. D.S. Bagul, Advocate for the PetitionerMr. R.B. Bhosale, Advocate for Respondent-OUIMr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for Respondent-StateMr. V.D. Sapkal, Sr. Advocate i/b. Mr. D.S. Manorkar, Advocate for Resp. No.2 ...... ( 2 ) wp 3840.23CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON :27th June, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON :16th August, 2024 JUDGMENT (Per: Y.G. Khobragade, J.) :-1.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of boththe sides, the matter is heard finally at the stage of admission.2.By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, the Petitioner has put-forth prayer clauses-B, C, D, E, F & G as under :- “B)By way of appropriate writ, order or directions in the like nature therespondent authorities be directed to forthwith stop the constructionactivities of national highway No. 6 at the sites (Gat No. 93/2) of petitioner.C)By way of appropriate order or directions in the like nature,appropriate contempt proceedings be initiated against respondentsauthorities for deliberately violating the order passed by the Hon'ble HighCourt in Writ petition No.7499/2022 and others. D)By way of appropriate order or directions in the like nature, therespondent authorities be directed to initiate and complete land acquisitionproceedings in respect of property of petitioner bearing Gut No. 93/2situated at Mauje Navapur Tal. Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar and further paycompensation to the petitioner.E)Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition therespondent authorities directed to stop the construction of national highwayNo. 6 at the sites of petitioner immediately and for that purpose issuenecessary orders;F)Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petitionappropriate contempt proceedings be initiated against respondentsauthorities for the deliberately violating the order passed by the Hon'bleHigh Court in Writ petition No. 7499/2022 and others and for that purposeissue necessary orders;
Legal Reasoning
( 23 ) wp 3840.23(d) person invoking the jurisdiction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches;(e) Ex facie barred by the law of limitation;(f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors. 42.Since it clearly appears that this Petition involves disputed andcomplex questions of facts, which do not warrant an adjudication whileexercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution as per ratio laid incase of City And Industrial Development Corporation, (supra), present Petitionis liable to be dismissed. 43.In so far as prayer clause-F is concerned, the Writ jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised for takingaction against the Contemnor for willful disobedience of order passed by thisCourt. So also, prayer clause-G is hit by Section 20-A of the Specific Relief Act.Therefore, this prayer also cannot be considered by this Court.44.In view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is dismissed.Rule is discharged. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.][RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]mub
Arguments
( 3 ) wp 3840.23G)Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition therespondent authorities be directed forthwith to initiate and complete landacquisition proceedings in respect of property of petitioner bearing Gut No.93/2 situated at Mauje Navapur Tal. Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar.”3.Heard at length Mr. D.S. Bagul, the learned counsel for thePetitioner, Mr. Bhosale, the standing counsel for the Respondent No.1, Mr. V.D.Sapkal, the learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 and Mr.Tambe the leaned AGP for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.4.Perused the written notes of arguments tendered on behalf of boththe sides. Having regard to the rival submissions canvassed on behalf of therival parties as well after going through the written submission the issue arisesfor our consideration is that whether this Court can exercise Writ jurisdictionunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate disputed questionof facts about measurement carried out by the Respondent No.3 to show howmuch area of the Petitioner’s land has been acquired for four lane widening ofNational Highway No.6 issued under Section 3A of National Highways Act,1956 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act, 1956).5.Mr. Bagul the learned counsel appearing for the Petitionercanvassed that originally Gut No.93 (S.No.68) ad-measuring 7 H 42 R (total742 R) at Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar was Gairan land. Smt. Jenabai Budya ( 4 ) wp 3840.23Mavachi was the owner of land to the extent of 5 H 97 R and one KashiramAahir was the owner to the extent of 1 H 45 R out of Gut No.93 (S.No.68). Thesame was allotted by the State Government to said Kashiram Aahir andmutation entry no.68 was recorded in the revenue record. Subsequently, Ms.Sarubai Kashinath Aahir inherited the land ad-measuring 1 H 45 R. As a resultGut No. 93 was bifurcated in two parts i.e. Gut bearing No. 93/1 (93/A) ofSmt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi and Gut No. 93/2 (93/B) of Sarubai KashinathAahir.6.He further canvassed that the State authorities did not acquire anypart of land out of Gut No. 93/2 for the purpose of road. KJP (LesserAssessment Register) maintained by Revenue Department suggest that noexisting old road passes from Gut No.93/2. Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi hadgiven part of her land to the extent of 2 H 98 R out of her total landadmeasuring 5 H 97 R to her daughter namely Fulabai and Smt. Jenabai BudyaMavachi kept remaining land ad-measuring 2 H 99 R with herself. As a resultagain Gut No. 93 was divided into 2 parts i.e. Gut No.93/1/A to the extent of 2H 99 R belonging to Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi and Gut No.93/1/B to theextent of 2 H 98 R belonging to Smt. Fulabai.7.The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner canvassed that inthe year 2006 Smt. Sarubai Kashiram Aahir sold her entire land ad-measuring 1 ( 5 ) wp 3840.23H 45 R out of Gut No. 93/2 (93/B) to one Shri Vipinbhai Chokhawala and on20.06.2019, the Petitioner has purchased the entire Gut No. 93/2 (93/B) ad-measuring 1 H 45 R from said Shri Vipinbhai Chokhawala by registered sale-deed dated 20.06.2019 and the same is subject matter of the present WritPetition.8.Mr. Bagul, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitionercanvassed that in the year 2016 Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi owner of GutNo.93/1/A sold 1 H out of 2 H 99 land in favour of the Petitioner. As a resultagain Gut No.93/1/A was sub-divided in two parts i.e. 93/1/A/1 belonging toSmt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi and 93/1/A/2 belonging to Petitioner.Subsequently, on 24.07.2017, the Petitioner again purchased remaining landad-measuring 1 H 99 R from Gut No.93/1/A/1 from Smt. Jenabai BudyaMavachi.9.Prior to execution of sale-deed i.e. on 24.02.2015 the AssistantDirector of Town Planning, Nandurbar sanctioned the lay out plan for Gut No.93/1/A ad-measuring 2 H 99 R. As per said layout map Gut No. 93/1/A istowards northern side of Gut No.93/2. Even in the year 2013, Smt. JenabaiBudya Mavachi had applied to the Collector, Nandurbar for permission underSection 36A of the M.L.R. Code and in pursuance of same necessary enquiry ( 6 ) wp 3840.23was conducted by the Collector. During the course of enquiry, the Circle Officerrecorded statements of neighboring owners of land.10.The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner canvassed that,on 30.10.2015, the Central Government issued a notification under Section 3Aof the Act, 1956 for acquisition of specified land for NH-6 bye-pass on stretchesof land kilometers 606-000 to 649-000 (Jalgaon – Maharashtra / Gujaratborder section) in Nandurbar District. As per the notification dated 30.10.2015,land ad-measuring 5115 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93 was shown to be acquired.Thereafter, on 28.10.2016 the Central Government published a notificationunder Section 3D (2) of the Act, 1956 was published showing intention foracquisition of land ad-measuring 5080 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/1/A and 35sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/2 i.e. total 5115 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93. Though theland of the Petitioner was affected due to widening of NH. 6, but his land wasnot included in the notification dated 28.10.2016 published under Section 3Dof the Act.11.It is further canvassed that Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi did notreceive any compensation in respect of acquired land from Gut No.93/1/A ad-measuring 5080 sq.mtrs, as her land was not under acquisition and theadjacent land owner of of Gut No.93/2 (93/B) namely Vipinbhai Chokhawala, ( 7 ) wp 3840.23the vendor of Petitioner had objected Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi fromaccepting compensation by instituting a suit bearing RCS No.27/2017.12.Mr. Bagul, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner furthercanvassed that on 08.06.2017, the Central Government published secondnotification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956 and decided to acquire land ad-measuring 11876 from Gut No. 93. On 09.01.2018, second notification underSection 3D was published and decided to acquire 3476 sq.mtrs land from GutNo.93/1/A/2, which was purchased by the Petitioner. The Petitioner hasreceived the compensation for the acquired land ad-measuring 3476 sq.mtrs.Thereafter, on 24.05.2018 the Central Government published third notificationunder Section 3D and decided to acquire 350 sq.mtrs land out of Gut No.93/B(93/2) of Shri Vipinbhai Chokhawala and compensation for the same wasreceived in the month of June-July 2019 by the Petitioner after he purchasedthe land from said Shri Vipinbhai Chokhawala.13.Mr. Bagul, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner furthercanvassed that as per third notification under section 3D dated 24.05.2018,land of Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi bearing Gut No. 93/1/A admeasuring5080 sq.mtrs., was shown to be acquired, but the Gut was wrongly typed asGut No. 93/A/1 in the notification dated 24.05.2018. Though, afterpublication of 3A and 3D notifications however, while passing the award the ( 8 ) wp 3840.23Respondents realized that the land of Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi is notaffected for road widening. Therefore, the Respondent-Authorities deleted GutNo.93/1/A and no compensation was paid to said Smt. Jenabai BudyaMavachi. Therefore, the notification issued for acquisition has been lapsed tothe extent of land ad-measuring 8050 sq.mtrs out of 2 H 99 R.14.It is further canvassed that on 23.08.2018, fourth notificationunder Section 3D of the Act, 1956 was published for acquisition of 715 sq.mtrsland from Gut No.93/B (93/2) for widening of road which was owned byVipinbhai Chokhawala and the proceeding for determination of compensationis pending with the Competent Authority.15.It is further canvassed that Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi neverreceived any compensation as her land Gut No.93/1/A was never underacquisition and in the meanwhile the Petitioner has purchased the remainingland ad-measuring 1 H 99 R from Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi on 24.07.2017.On 20.06.2019, the Petitioner purchased the land ad-measuring 1 H 45 Rbearing Gut No.93/2 (93/B) from Vipinbhai Chokhawala.16.Mr. Bagul, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner furthercanvassed that since more land has been affected in the acquisition, therefore,the Petitioner had moved to the Respondent Authorities for measurement of the ( 9 ) wp 3840.23land. Accordingly, on 28.12.2018 the office of Respondent No.3 issued noticedated 05.01.2019 to the interested owners and directed them to remain presenton 18.01.2019 at the site for measurement. Accordingly, the officers ofRespondent No. 3 measured the land and submitted its report dated15.06.2019 along with map and measurement sheet. As per measurementsheet, the Petitioner’s land ad-measuring 11150 sq.mtrs out of 13400 sq.mtrsfrom Gut No.93/2 (93/B) has been affected. So also, land ad-measuring 3476sq.mtrs out of 10000 sq.mtrs from Gut No. 93/1/A/2 in total 14976 sq.mtrs hasbeen affected due to acquisition.17. It is further canvassed that on receipt of measurement reportdated 15.06.2019 from Dy. SLR, Navapur, the Respondent No. 1-CALAprepared a report and submitted it to Respondent No. 2-NHAI to notify thesame under section 3A of the Act, 1956, but Respondent No. 2-NHAI on06.09.2019 raised certain queries to the said report and directed to rectify thesame. Therefore, Respondent No.1 rectified said queries and submitted freshreport dated 20.12.2019 and requested for issuance of notification underSection 3A of the Act, 1956. Again, Respondent No. 2-NHAI raised queries inreport dated 20.12.2019, therefore, Respondent No.1 again submitted a freshreport dated 23.06.2020. Thereafter, again Respondent No.2 raised queries onreport dated 23.06.2020 vide communication dated 27.07.2020 in respect of ( 10 ) wp 3840.23six different gut numbers. Thereafter, vide letter dated 17.08.2020,Respondent No.1 rectified those queries and requested the office of RespondentNo.2 for issuance of notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956.18. It is further canvassed that pursuant to above proposal dated23.06.2020 and letter dated 17.08.2020, Respondent No.2 deputed it’srepresentatives and Respondent No.3 - Dy. SLR, Navapur to revisit the Writ landfor verification of the actual position, however, the Respondent Nos.2 & 3visited the writ land behind the back of the Petitioner and without giving priornotice to him and without carrying out any measurement, submitted a report.Therefore, the Project Director of NHAI-PIU, Dhule issued the impugned orderon 19.10.2020 and refused to issue notification u/s 3A of the Act, 1956 butobserved that the land of the Petitioner should not be considered as a new landpocket.19.Being dissatisfied by order dated 19.10.2020, the Petitioner hadfiled W.P. No.7499/2020 before this Court. On 29.07.2021, the Co-ordinateBench of this Court has passed an order and observed that, the area of 9656sq.mtrs land is acquired and compensation has been paid to the beneficiaries.Further, the NHAI desires to acquire 8050 sq. mts. land, a notification is issuedand an award is yet to be passed. The NHAI submits that the legal procedureset out u/s 3 of the Act, 1956, shall be followed and any person who may have ( 11 ) wp 3840.23a title or interest, may raise an objection before the Competent Authority. TheLd. Collector Nandurbar was directed to monitor the measurement in presenceof all the litigating parties/ title holders/ persons having interests in theproperty. So also, any land over and above the details set out in ‘X-1’ is to beacquired, the procedure laid down in law shall also be followed.20.Thereafter, on 27.02.2023, the Petitioner submitted arepresentation with the Respondent No.1 and requested for carrying outwidening of road in respect of field Gut numbers as per chart Exhibit ‘X-1’ filedin Writ Petition No.7499/2020 and not to carry out laying of road work inother Gut numbers. Again on 13.03.2023 the Petitioner submitted anapplication with the Respondent No.1 and prayed that the award in respect of8050 sq.mtrs is pending and only land ad-measuring 3476 + 5080 = 8656sq.mtrs has been approved and prayed for enquiry. 21.Mr. Bagul, the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner furthercanvassed that inspite of the undertaking given to this Court in W.P. No.7499/2020, the Respondent-Authorities forcibly entered the Petitioner’s landbearing Gut No.93/2 and carried out construction activities in disregard to theorder passed by this Court in W.P. No.7499/2020. Therefore, the Petitioner’sright to property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India is violated. ( 12 ) wp 3840.2322.To buttress these submissions the learned counsel for the Petitionerrelied on case of Sukh Dutt Ratra and Anr. V/s. State of H. P.; (2022) 7 S.C.C.508, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, nobody can bedeprived of liberty or property without due process, or authorization of law andthe State on ground of delay and laches cannot evade its legal responsibilitytowards those from whom private property has been expropriated.23.He further relied on the case of Govind Poslya Gavit and Anr. V/s.Competent Authority, 2022 (5) Mh. L.J. 632, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench ofthis Court has held that the Petitioner cannot be dispossessed without dueprocess of law and without acquiring the land of the Petitioners by followingprocedure under Section 3-A to 3-E of the Act, 1956. An attempt made byRespondent No. 2 to take possession of the lands of the Petitioners to carry outconstruction is clearly in breach of Section 3-A to 3-D of the Act, 1956 andArticle 300-A of the Constitution of India. However, the ratio laid down in boththese judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.24.Mr. Ajay Yadav, Project Director, PIU Dhule, National HighwaysAuthority of India, the Respondent No.2 filed affidavit in reply and stronglyresisted the claim of the Petitioner. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Sr. Advocate for theRespondent No.2 canvassed that the Respondent No.2, the Central Governmentissued Gazette notification No. 2958 (A) dated 30.10.2015 u/s 3-A of the ( 13 ) wp 3840.23Act,1956 declaring its intention to acquire 5115 sq.mtrs of land from Gut No.93village Navapur, Dist. Nandurbar for operation of the NH-6.25.He further submits that Section 3C provides that any person mayraise objection within a period of 21 days from the date of publication ofnotification to the Competent Authority and object the use of land for thepurpose or the purposes mentioned in Section 3A. After publication ofnotification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956, the Respondents are authorizedto enter into the land to be acquired for the purposes of measurement.Accordingly, a joint measurement was carried out in respect of Gut No. 93 andit was noticed that an area of 8556 sq.mtrs land owned by Smt. Jenabai BudyaMavachi from Gut No.93/A/1 and an area of 35 sq.mtrs owned by VipinbhaiChokhawala (vendor of present Petitioner) from Gut No.93/B i.e. total 8906sq.mtrs from Gut No. 93 is under acquisition. The joint measurement reportsdated 06.05.2016 and 24.06.2016, clearly show the acquisition of land fromGut Nos. 93/A/1 and 93/B.26.It is further canvassed on behalf of the Respondents that infurtherance of notification under Section 3A, the Central Government issued anotification No. 3345 (A) dated 28.10.2016 under Section 3D of the Act foracquisition of 5080 sq.mtrs land. Accordingly, the Competent Authority passedan award on 27.11.2017, for acquisition of land to the extent of 5080 sq.mtrs ( 14 ) wp 3840.23i.e. from Gut Nos.93/A/1 and 93/B, after completion of acquisition videnotification u/s 3D issued on 28.10.2016 from Gut No. 93/A/1. However,subsequently the Petitioner purchased the land admeasuring 1 H which wasunder acquisition on 23.01.2017 and remaining land ad-measuring 1 H 99 Rout of Gut No.93/A/1 on 17.08.2017 out of Gut No.93/A/1 including the landacquired from Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi before passing of award underSection 3G of the Act. So also, the Petitioner filed an objection with the CALA,Nandurbar contending that his land ad-measuring 8400 sq.mtrs from GutNo.93/1/A/2 was affected due to acquisition and this fact was recorded by theCompetent Authority while passing award dated 27.11.2017. Therefore, theCompetent Authority had referred the dispute to the District Court Nandurbur(Exh. R-7).27.The learned senior counsel further canvassed that as per jointreport dated 12.05.2017 an area of 8556 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/1/A/2 andan area of 750 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/B is under acquisition. Accordingly,notification dated 08.06.2017 under Section 3A of the Act,1956 was publishedfor acquisition of land ad-measuring 11876 sq.mtrs for Gut No.93. As pernotification dated 09.01.2018 under Section 3D of the Act, the land ad-measuring 3476 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/A/1, was published and balance areaof 8050 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/A/1 in respect of Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi ( 15 ) wp 3840.23and area of 350 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/B, is standing in the name ofVipinbhai Chokhawala.28.Further, as per joint measurement reports dated 12.05.2017 and24.06.2016, prepared by Respondent No.3, the area under acquisition from GutNo.93/B was shown to the extent of 350 sq.mtrs and 750 sq.mtrs i.e. total 1100sq.mtrs. However, acquisition was completed for the area 35 sq.mtrs and 350sq.mtrs vide notification dated 28.10.2016 and 24.05.2018. Therefore,notification dated 23.08.2018 under Section 3A and notification dated21.12.2018 under section 3D was published for balance area of land i.e. 715sq.mtrs and compensation was duly paid to Vipinbhai Chokhawala under awarddated 04.09.2019.29.It is further canvassed on behalf of the Respondent No.2 that asper joint measurement report dated 12.05.2017 and Panchanama executed inpresence of Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi, Vipinbhai Chokhawala, presentPetitioner (Niranjan Omprakash Agrawal) and others have confirmed theboundaries of their fields and on the basis of same, office of land recordsprepared a report dated 12.05.2017 which shows that the land ad-measuring8556 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/1/A/2, an area of 750 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/Btotal 9306 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93 was affected due to acquisition. ( 16 ) wp 3840.2330.However, Vipinbhai Chokhawala had filed a Civil Suit bearing RCSNo. 27/2017 against Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi seeking compensation whichwas granted in her favour. The present Petitioner had also intervened in thesaid Civil Suit. Subsequently, said Civil Suit was compromised on 13.07.2019.Thereafter, the Competent Authority passed an additional award on 15.12.2018in respect of land Gut No.93/1/A/2 to the extent of 3476 sq.mtrs which isshown in the name of the Petitioner and an area of land ad-measuring 350sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/B owned by Vipinbhai Chokhawala (vendor of presentPetitioner). However, compensation was not determined in respect of 8050sq.mtrs land which was standing in the name of Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachias she already sold the complete land from Gut No.93/A/1, to the Petitioner.Therefore, by way of all the above said awards the Respondent No. 2-NHAI hasacquired 9656 sq.mtrs of land from Gut No. 93. 31.According to the Respondent No.2, the area of 8050 sq.mtrs hasnot been required for acquisition under communication dated 08.05.2023 but itwas requested to direct the Respondent No. 3-Dy. SLR for demarcation of ROW(Right of Way) beyond 45 meters as per acquired land of 9656 sq.mtrs, forwhich the compensation has already been deposited by the Respondent No.2.The Competent Authority passed an award on 12.06.2023. Though, only 1867sq.mtrs., of land is required for 45 meters., for right of way (ROW), however, ( 17 ) wp 3840.23the Petitioner in collusion with Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi and VipinbhaiChokhawala already gained huge compensation for area of 9656 sq.mtrs andagain the Petitioner claimed for compensation for the additional area of 10400sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/B by showing that he is the only owner of Gut No.93.Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Petition.32.Having regard to the submissions canvassed on behalf of both thesides, we have gone through the Petition paper book. It is not in dispute thatarea of original Gut No. 93 was ad-measuring 7 H 42 R of Smt. Jenabai BudyaMavachi who owned land ad-measuring 5 H 97 R and one Kashiram Aahir wasthe owner of 1 H 45 R. Further, Smt. Sarubai Kashinath Aahir inherited theland of Kashinath Aahir ad-measuring 1 H 45 R. The land ad-measuring 5 H 97R was mutated in the name of Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi and land ad-measuring 1 H 45 R in the name of Sarubai Kashinath Aahir. The separate GutNos. bearing No.93/1 (93/A) given to the share of Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachiand separate Gut No.93/2 (93/B) was given for the land ad-measuring 1 H 45R in respect of land of Ms. Sarubai Kashinath Aahir. In the year 2006 Ms.Sarubai Kashiram Aahir sold entire Gut No.93/2 (93/B) ad-measuring 1 H 45 Rto Shri Vipinbhai Chokhawala.33.The Petitioner himself admitted in his Affidavit in Rejoinder thatShri Kashiram Motiram Ahir and Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi were ( 18 ) wp 3840.23encroachers on the Gairan land vide mutation entry no. 68 dated 29.09.1976and mutation entry no. 183 dated 15.12.1979. However, Shri VipinbhaiChokhawala, the vendor of petitioner purchased said Gairan land andsubsequently the Petitioner purchased entire Gut No.93/2 (93/B) ad-measuring1 H 45 R from Shri Vipinbhai Chokhawala under registered sale-deed dated20.06.2019. The Petitioner has not pleaded about granting of permission fortransfer of occupancy rights by the Competent Authority in favour of Smt.Jenabai Budya Mavachi.34.It is further revealed that in the year 2016, Smt. Jenabai BudyaMavachi sold Gut No.93/1/A to the extent of 1 H out of 2 H 99 R in favour ofthe Petitioner. After execution of sale-deed of field Gut No.93/1/A to theextent of 1 H land was sub-divided in two parts i.e. 93/1/A/1 and 93/1/A/2 tothe extent of land purchased by the Petitioner. Subsequently, on 24.07.2017the Petitioner again purchased remaining land from Gut No.93/1/A/1 ad-measuring 1 H 99 R from Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi. However, prior toexecution of sale-deed dated 24.02.2015, the Assistant Director of TownPlanning, Nandurbar, sanctioned the layout plan for Gut No.93/1/A ad-measuring 2 H 99 R. As per layout map Gut No.93/1/A is standing towardsnorthern side of Gut No.93/2. In the year 2013, the original owner Smt.Jenabai Budya Mavachi submitted an application for transfer of occupancy of ( 19 ) wp 3840.23land under Section 36A of the M.L.R. Code before the Collector, Nandurbar.Thereafter , necessary enquiry was conducted by the Collector. 35. It is not in dispute that on 30.10.2015, the Central Governmentissued a notification under Section 3A of the Act. The Petitioner purchased theland ad-measuring 1 H 99 R from Gut No.93/2 out of which land ad-measuring5115 sq.mtrs was shown under acquisition as per notification dated 30.10.2015under Section 3A of the Act, 1956. The joint measurement report in respect ofland owned by Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi for the area of 856 sq.mtrs out ofGut No.93/A/1 and area of 35 sq.mtrs standing in the name of VipinbhaiChokhawala from Gut No.93/B (93/2) in all total 8906 sq.mtrs has been shownunder acquisition. Again as per Government gazette No.3345(A) dated28.10.2016, published under Section 3D, the acquisition of land ad-measuring5080 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/A/1 owned by Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi andan area of 35 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/B owned by Vipinbhai Chokhawala, wasshown under acquisition.36.Indeed, on 27.11.2017 the Competent Authority passed an awardand determined compensation for the acquired land to the extent of 5080sq.mtrs and 35 sq.mtrs as observed above. Therefore, it prima facie appearsthat the Petitioner purchased the land ad-measuring 1 H on 23.01.2017, fromGut No.93/1/A, after publication of notification dated 28.10.2016. So also, the ( 20 ) wp 3840.23remaining land ad-measuring 1 H 99 R was purchased on 17.08.2017, beforedeclaration of award under Section 3G of the Act, 1956. Thereafter, thePetitioner filed objection with the Competent Authority Land Acquisition,Nandurbar (CALA) raising objection that his land ad-measuring 8400 sq.mtrsfrom Gut No.93/1/A/2 is affected. The Competent Authority recorded findingsin this regard while passing the award dated 17.11.2017.37.As per the joint measurement report submitted by the RespondentNo.3 on 12.05.2017 it shows that an area of 8556 sq.mtrs from GutNo.93/1/A/2 and an area of 750 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/B was underacquisition. As per the notification dated 08.06.2017 published under Section3A of the Act an area of 11876 sq.mtrs was shown under acquisition from GutNo.93. The notification published under Section 3D of the Act on 09.01.2018for acquisition of land ad-measuring 3476 sq.mtrs standing in the name of thePetitioner (Niranjan Omprakash Agrawal) from Gut No.93/A/1. On 24.05.2018a notification under Section 3D was published for balance area of 8050 sq.mtrsfrom Gut No.93/A/1 which was standing in the name of Smt. Jenabai BudyaMavachi and an area of 350 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93/B standing in the name ofVipinbhai Chokhawala.38.As per joint measurement reports dated 24.06.2016 and12.05.2017, submitted by the Respondent No.3-Dy. SLR, the area of land ad- ( 21 ) wp 3840.23measuring 350 and 750 sq.mtrs total 1100 sq.mtrs have been shown from GutNo.93/B. The acquisition proceeding for acquisition of 350 and 750 sq.mtrs.,land has been completed under notification dated 28.10.2016, 24.05.2018.Thereafter, a notification under Section 3A was published on 23.08.2018 and anotification u/s 3D of the Act,1956 was published on 21.12.2018 for balancearea of 715 sq.mtrs. As per Award dated 04.09.2019, the compensation paid toVipinbhai Chokhawala. After confirmation of boundaries of land by thePetitioner (Niranjan Omprakash Agrawal), Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi andVipinbhai Chokhawala, a report dated 12.05.2017 has been submitted whichshows the land ad-measuring 8556 sq.mtrs., affected from Gut No.93/1/A/2,an area ad-measuring 750 sq.mtrs., land affected from Gut No.93/2 (93/B)total 9306 sq.mtrs.39.It is not in dispute that, Shri Vipinbhai Chokhawala, the vendor ofthe Petitioner had filed RCS No.27/2017 against Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachiand sought for compensation. The Petitioner intervened in the said suit, whichwas ultimately compromised before the Lok Adalat on 13.07.2019. Thereafter,additional award came to be passed on 15.12.2018 to the extent of land ad-measuring 3476 sq.mtrs out of Gut No.93/1/A/2 in the name of Petitioner andfor area of 350 sq.mtrs from Gut 93/B/1 in respect of Vipinbhai Chokhawala.However, again Smt. Jenabai Budya Mavachi raised an objection before the ( 22 ) wp 3840.23Competent Authority under the Land Acquisition Act and claimed that thePetitioner forcibly purchased the land and cheated her. 40.On perusal of joint measurement report, it shows that the NHAIacquired 9656 sq.mtrs from Gut No.93. The Petitioner contended that thoughthe Respondent No.2 acquired more land than notified under notification u/s3A and 3D of the Act but said fact was disputed by the Respondents.Therefore, it appears that there are disputed questions of facts in respect ofmeasurement carried out while acquiring Gut No.93 which has been consideredwhile passing the additional awards. Needless to say that, the CompetentAuthority considered the joint measurement report submitted by theRespondent No.3 and held that no additional land out of Gut No.93 is required.41.In City and Industrial Development Corporation V/s. DosuAardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Ors.; (2009) 1 SCC 168, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt has held that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction underArticle 226, is duty-bound to consider whether;(a) adjudication of Writ Petition involves any complex and disputed question of facts and whether they can be satisfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all material facts;(c) the Petitioner has any alternative or effective remedy for the resolution of the dispute;