POONAM WD/O HARESHKUMAR BABUBHAI DESAI vs COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR,NAVSARI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/9695/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9695 of 2026
=============================================
POONAM WD/O HARESHKUMAR BABUBHAI DESAI & ORS.
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY COLLECTOR,NAVSARI &
ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MS DHARA M SHAH(5546) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 28/07/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Ms.Dhara M. Shah, the learned advocate appears for the
respondent No.4.
2. This is a wholly misconceived petition filed by three
persons claiming to be heirs and legal representatives of
deceased Hareshkumar Babubhai Desai, the original owner of
the land in question.
3. The land in question was subject matter of an acquisition
proceedings under the National Highways Act, 1956 (for
short, “the Act, 1956”) and as per the statement made in the
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:11 IST 2026
C/SCA/9695/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
writ petition itself, the compensation award with respect to
the land in question was declared on 14.02.2020.
4. A statement is made in the writ petition to the effect that
the original owner, namely Hareshkumar Babubhai Desai,
husband of petitioner No.1, was recorded as an independent
owner and occupant of the land in question since 06.09.2001.
Upon his demise on 27.04.2021, names of three petitioners
herein were entered into the revenue records as legal, lineal
heirs via heirship entry No.2143 dated 16.06.2021.
5. We fail to understand as to how the heirship entry
No.2143 dated 16.06.2021 was recorded by the revenue
authorities when the land in question was acquired under the
Act, 1956 and in view of the scheme of the National Highways
Act, 1956, the land in question vests absolutely in the Central
Government free from all encumbrances upon publication of
the declaration under sub section (1) of Section 3D of the Act,
1956 on 28.06.2018.
6. It seems that the heirship entry made by the revenue
authorities after death of the husband of petitioners, namely
entry No.2143 dated 16.06.2021, has led to the situation as
occurring in the present case.
7. The petitioner No.1, wife of the deceased owner, had
executed a registered sale deed dated 04.03.2023 with
respect to the land in question for a sale consideration of Rs.
62,22,000/-, much after the passing of the award dated
14.02.2020 and vesting of the land in question with the
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:11 IST 2026
C/SCA/9695/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
Central Government by virtue of the declaration dated
28.06.2018 under Section 3D of the Act, 1956.
8. Not stopping there, the petitioner No.1, made a
representation before the competent authority for
disbursement of compensation under the award dated
14.02.2020, after execution of the sale deed dated
04.03.2023, on the premise that the award reflected the name
of husband of the petitioner as owner of the land in question
as per the revenue entry and hence the right to receive
compensation stood crystallized in favor of the original owner
and later inherited by the petitioners.
9. This submission is found to be completely misconceived
for the simple reason that in any case with the vesting of the
land in question absolutely free from all encumbrances in the
Central Government with the declaration under Section 3D of
the Act, 1956 made on 28.06.2018, the original owner was
divested of his title into the land in question. The only right
left with the original owner was the right to receive
compensation under the award dated 14.02.2020, which had
not been exercised by the original owner during his lifetime.
After his death on 27.04.2021, even his heirs, namely the
petitioners herein did not ask for compensation till execution
of the sale deed dated 04.03.2023, for the reasons best known
to petitioner No.1.
10. There is a complete silence in the writ petition about the
notice issued in the name of the land owner to file his claim to
receive compensation determined under the award dated
14.02.2020.
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:11 IST 2026
C/SCA/9695/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
11. Be that as it may, with the execution of the sale deed
dated 04.03.2023, by the petitioner No.1, wife of deceased
owner has parted away with the right to receive compensation
left with the owner of the land in question after acquisition
was complete.
12. It is held by the Apex Court in the decision of K horshed
Shapoor Chenai v. Asstt. Controller of Estate Duty,
[(1980) 2 SCC 1] that the right to receive compensation is
akin to right to property and is transferable.
13. The sale deed dated 04.03.2023 is not on record and, as
such, we are not in a position to see as to what was actually
transferred by the petitioner No.1 herein. However, since the
petitioner No.1 admittedly received the sale consideration of
Rs. 62,22,000/-, at least it is evident that the right to receive
compensation stood transferred in favor of the purchaser of
the said sale deed, namely respondent No.3 herein.
14. In this scenario, no error can be found in the order dated
23.01.2026 passed by the competent authority whereunder
the application made by the purchaser, namely respondent
No.3 herein, for disbursement of compensation has been
allowed, noticing the factum of execution of the sale deed by
the wife of the deceased original owner.
15. No interference can be called for in the order impugned.
the present petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed.
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:11 IST 2026
C/SCA/9695/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2026
16. However, before parting with this order, we find it fit
and proper to direct that the copy of this order be sent to the
Secretary, Revenue Department of the State to formulate a
proper policy / circular guiding revenue officers of the State in
the matter of mutation / changes brought in the revenue
entries of the lands which are subject matter of acquisition,
once the acquisition process is completed and the land vest
with the State or the Central Government, as the case may be.
17. The effect of the revenue entries casually made by the
revenue officers on the applications moved by the heirs, as in
the present case, resulted in passing of hands even with
respect to the acquired lands, wherein the original owners
had already been divested of their title by operation of law, is
quite far-reaching. Such a situation is repeatedly coming to
this Court leading to unnecessary litigations by transfer of
vested lands, which give rise further complication by creation
of third party rights in Government lands.
18. The compliance of this direction shall be reported to this
Court through the Registrar General of the High Court within
a period of four weeks from today. Ms. Hetal Patel, learned
Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State
respondent, shall intimate this order to the Secretary,
Revenue Department within a period of three (3) days.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
SAHIL S. RANGER
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Thu Jul 30 2026 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 30 23:10:11 IST 2026