PATEL DAXABEN NATVERBHAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 684 of 2019
==========================================================
PATEL DAXABEN NATVERBHAI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PR THAKKAR(899) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,5.1,5.2,5.3,5.4,6
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR KV SHELAT(834) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS HETAL PATEL, AGP, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s)
No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 01/09/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL)
1. Mr. H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate, has put in
appearance to submit that he has retired from appearing on
behalf of respondent No.3, namely, Vadodara Urban
Development Authority about one-and-a-half years ago.
However, his name is still shown in the cause list. The name
of Mr. H.S. Munshaw is directed to be deleted from the cause
list forthwith.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. P.R. Thakkar for the
petitioners and learned advocate Mr. K.V. Shelat for the
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
respondent.
3. The present petition has been filed on 15.01.2019 with
the following reliefs;
“A) Your Lordship may be pleased to allow and admit
this petition and be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or an
order or a direction, declaring that the action of
Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 diversifying the purposes of
the acquired land of the petitioners bearing R.S. No.14
paiki admeasuring about 0-38-45 H. Area situated in
Village: Atladara, Tal. & Dist. Vadodara, from public
purpose to private purpose, for the benefit of respondent
No.4, is illegal, null and void and be pleased to quash
and set aside the Notifications issued under Section-4 and
under Section-6 of the Land Acquisition Act (Annexure-A
and B) and be pleased further to quash and set aside the
subsequent land acquisition proceedings of petitioners'
land bearing R.S. No.14 paiki admeasuring about 0-38-45
H. Area situated in Village: Atladara, Tal. & Dist.
Vadodara, by which the land of the petitioners was
acquired by Respondent No.3 VUDA.
B) Your Lordship may be pleased to pass an
appropriate order or direction directing the Respondent
No.3 and 4 to restore the possession of the land bearing
R.S. No.14 paiki admeasuring about 0-38-45 H. Area
situated in Village: Atladara, Tal. & Dist. Vadodara.
C) Pending the final hearing and disposal of this
petition, Your Lordship may be pleased to restrain the
Respondent No.3 and 4 from raising any further
Page 2 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
construction in any manner and be pleased to restrain
further the said Respondents from creating a third party
rights in any manner and from alienating the land in
question, namely the land bearing R.S. No.14 paiki
admeasuring about 0-378-45 H. Area situated in Village:
Atladara, Tal. & Dist. Vadodara.
D) Cost of this petition be awarded.”
4. From the prayer clause of the writ petition, pertinent is
to note that the petitioners are seeking a writ of Certiorari /
Mandamus / any other appropriate Writ for quashing and
setting aside the entire land acquisition proceedings in respect
of land bearing Revenue Survey No.14 paiki, ad-measuring 0-
38-45 H. situated in Village: Atladara, Taluka and District:
Vadodara, which was acquired by respondent No.3, namely,
Vadodara Urban Development Authority (VUDA) by acquisition
notifications dated 22.08.1991 and 15.09.1992 under Sections 4
and 6; respectively, of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. From
the own statement of the petitioners in the writ petition, the
award of compensation with respect to the land in question
was declared on 28.12.1994 and the possession of the land in
question has been taken from the petitioners on 01.08.1995.
The land in question, thus, vests with the State Government by
virtue of Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
Page 3 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
5. The contention in the writ petition is that respondent –
VUDA authority had acquired the land in question for the
housing scheme known as “Keshavnagar Society” for
construction of houses for the poor people. Some of the
acquired land in another locality of the same Village has been
utilized for the construction of similar type of residential flats
by raising different towers in the name of “Madhavnagar
Society” for the weaker sections of the society and poor
people.
6. The further contention in the writ petition is that the
petitioners filed a reference case under section 18 for
enhancement of compensation, which was decided vide
judgment and order dated 22.08.2017 and compensation was
enhanced from Rs.30 per square metre to Rs.246 per square
metre. The respondent – VUDA authority, however, chose to
challenge the reference Court award by filing First Appeal
No.37 of 2018, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 21.06.2018. It is also admitted that
the petitioners have received compensation from the competent
authority as per the order of the High Court.
7. The further contention in the writ petition is that
construction of “Keshavnagar Society” and “Madhavnagar
Page 4 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
Society” was made by respondent – VUDA authority and those
constructions were of poor quality and as a result of it, the
constructed towers collapsed sometime in the year 2013, which
had led to the death of about eleven persons in the mishap /
incident.
8. Resultantly, respondent – VUDA authority demolished all
the constructed towers of “Keshavnagar Society” and
“Madhavnagar Society”. Upon demands of the occupants of
the residential units and pressure of various persons,
respondent – VUDA authority passed a resolution to construct
residential units for the families of victims at the same place,
i.e. on the same land. The said fact came to the knowledge of
the petitioners through a newspaper report.
9. The contention is that now respondent – VUDA authority
has decided to raise construction under a PPP (Public Private
Partnership) Model and gave the land in question to a private
builder, namely, respondent No.4 herein. The constructions
began to appear on the land in question somewhere around
the year 2018. The petitioners were under the impression that
the development on their land, namely, Revenue Survey No.14
paiki, was being made for “Keshavnagar Society” and hence,
they raised no objection initially. However, when they came to
Page 5 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
know that respondent No.4, a private builder, in collusion with
respondent – VUDA authority, had started bookings of flats /
residential units constructed over the land in question, which
was acquired in the past by respondent – VUDA authority for
the benefit of weaker sections of the society and had proposed
to construct a commercial complex comprising of shops,
offices, restaurants, cafe, banquets, multiplexes, etc. over the
land in question, they decided to make an enquiry.
10. It then transpired that respondent – VUDA authority had
executed a registered sale deed on 30.06.2017 by which
respondent – VUDA authority had sold the acquired lands
along with other plots for raising residential units for poor
people. The said sale deed has been registered in the Office of
the Sub-Registrar.
11. The submission is that respondent – VUDA authority
appears to be in collusion with respondent No.4, as the sale
deed has been executed with a negative premium of Rs.27.30
Crores, paid by respondent – VUDA authority to respondent
No.4, in addition to the land which has been transferred in its
favour. It is, thus, the case of the petitioners that the land of
the petitioners, which has been acquired with a laudable
object, has now become a tool of profiteering for the private
Page 6 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
builder, namely, respondent No.4, who has got the land in
question to develop residential / commercial units, etc. and
earn profits out of it.
12. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in
2011 (3) G.L.H. 425 in the case of M/s. Royal Orchid Hotels
Limited and another v. G. Jayaram Reddy and others and by
referring to paragraph-16 onward, it was submitted that the
present petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of latches
and that by quashing the acquisition proceedings, the land in
question is required to be restored to the petitioners.
13. Taking note of the contents of the writ petition, we may
proceed to look to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent
No.4 herein. It is categorically submitted in the affidavit of
respondent No.4 that the averments in the writ petition are in
ignorance of the fact that the land in question has been given
to respondent No.4 under the PPP Model and that the nature
of development, which are being carried out, are in respect of
such PPP Model scheme projects. The entire scheme and its
terms and conditions are in the nature of tripartite rights and
obligations under the benevolent schemes for rehabilitation of
the slum dwellers and in public interest. The respondent –
VUDA authority has acted as per the Government policy for
Page 7 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
PPP projects and has not committed any illegality.
14. The contention is that all allegations of unfair practice or
collusion between respondent – VUDA authority and
respondent No.4 are baseless and that respondent No.4 had
started construction on the lands in question in terms of the
tripartite agreement on PPP model.
15. It is further stated in the affidavit of respondent No.4
that in relation to “Madhavnagar” and “Keshavnagar”
Societies, Village: Altadara, Taluka and District: Vadodara, on
PPP / Turnkey basis (MKRS) under Affordable Housing of
Gujarat Government Slum Rehabilitation Policy PPP, 2013, the
respondent – VUDA authority had invited tenders for the
purpose of development of said land under the Public Private
Partnership project as per its Policy of 2013. The tender
process and the action of respondent – VUDA authority was
also challenged by one M/s. Ishavashyam Infra LLP on various
grounds. M/s. N.A. Construction Company to whom respondent
– VUDA authority had initially given the contract, was black-
listed in PPP Model Contracts on account of breach of terms
and after terminating its contract, the respondent – VUDA
authority invited fresh tender, which came to be granted in
favour of respondent No.4 herein. The challenge to the said
Page 8 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
tender process, as aforesaid, by M/s. Ishavashyam Infra LLP in
Special Civil Application No.9551 of 2017 came to be dismissed
as withdrawn.
16. It is further stated that after entering into contract with
respondent – VUDA authority, re-development of large portions
of land ad-measuring 15,885 square metres, known as
“Mahadevnagar” and “Keshavnagar”, had taken place. The
work order dated 17.12.2016 given by respondent – VUDA
authority for the development of integrated group facility was
on PPP / Turnkey basis (MKRS) under the Affordable Housing
of Gujarat Government Slum Rehabilitation Policy PPP, 2013.
The specific contention is that the respondent No.4 has
completed construction of Part-A – development of constructing
residential accommodation under the State Government’s
Rehabilitation Policy as per the terms and conditions of
contract.
17. The respondent No.3, namely VUDA authority, by passing
appropriate resolution, had executed a registered sale deed
dated 06.06.2017 in favour of respondent No.4 for Part-B land
as per the PPP Model scheme and the terms and conditions of
the project. The respondent No.4, thereafter, started further
development of the said land after getting the sanctioned
Page 9 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
development plan and construction permission. The respondent
No.4, thus, became exclusive owner and title-holder of Part-B
land, as per the PPP project and as an entitlement, respondent
No.4 also procured required loans for the purpose of
construction as per the agreed terms and conditions with
respondent – VUDA authority under the PPP project.
18. In some portion of Part-B land, respondent No.4 has
constructed ten storied residential flats and in other portion of
Part-B land, respondent No.4 has constructed commercial
complex, which are complete upto 80% complete. The
respondent No.4, being in rightful possession and ownership of
the land in question, has made bookings and allotted
residential and commercial units, thereby creating third party
rights. The contention, thus, is that the entire PPP project has
been executed as per the Government policy and the
Development Agreements. The extent of construction made by
respondent No.4 involve few hundred Crores, as per the
“Mukhya Mantri Gruh Yojana” - Affordable Housing of Gujarat
Slum Rehabilitation Policy (PPP-2013).
19. It is, thus, the stand of respondent No.4 that the
acquiring body with whom the property was vested, was
entitled to develop the acquired land as per the PPP project
Page 10 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
model, which was done after inviting tenders. The entire land
is essentially divided in two parts; one is Part-A, whereupon,
under the tender contract, the construction of flats for
rehabilitation of slum dwellers has been completed. Under the
contract, the respondent No.4 was also required to pay rent to
the slum dwellers for more than two years for taking
temporary houses on rent and after development of residential
scheme, the vacant possession has been handed over to them.
The respondent No.4 was required to construct thousands of
flats at a concessional rate and transfer their ownership to the
slum dwellers, as per the terms and conditions of the PPP
project policy. In lieu of the investment made by respondent
No.4 for the development of Part-A of the total acquired land,
as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the
respondent – VUDA authority had sold certain portion of land,
identified as Part-B land to respondent No.4 on a premium,
upon which development work was carried out later by
respondent No.4.
20. It is, thus, the case of respondent No.4 that the entire
project has been executed by inviting a public tender and in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the PPP contract
executed between the respondent – VUDA authority,
respondent No.4 and the State Government. As a result
Page 11 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
thereof, the development of land in question is already
complete and third party rights have been created over Part-A
land allocated to respondent No.4, either with the transfer of
ownership to the slum dwellers / persons belonging to the
weaker sections of society; or in Part-B land, which was sold
to respondent No.4, under the terms and conditions of the
agreement in lieu of the investment made by it for the
development of Part-A.
21. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of the
petitioners, the averments made in the writ petition are
reiterated and it is sought to be denied that on the date of
filing of the writ petition, 80% of the work on Part-B land was
over. The contention is that constructions were made after the
writ petition was filed and the land in question belonging to
the petitioners, which was acquired for development of housing
societies for weaker sections of the society, since has not been
utilized for the said purpose; rather the respondent – VUDA
authority in collusion with respondent No.4, had diversified the
same for the wrongful gain of respondent No.4 under the guise
of PPP model.
22. Taking note of the submissions made in the writ petition,
affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No.4 as well as the
Page 12 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
rejoinder-affidavit, suffice it to say that the petitioners are
unscrupulous litigants, who have got compensation for the
acquired lands in the year 1994 and also paid enhanced
compensation under the award of the reference Court sometime
in the year 2017-2018. As per the own case of the petitioners,
the land in question, acquisition of which was completed in
the year 1995 with the transfer of possession to respondent –
VUDA, i.e. the acquiring body, was developed by construction
of residential units in the name of “Keshavnagar” and
“Mahadevnagar” which were duly allotted to the weaker
sections of the society. The buildings constructed by respondent
– VUDA authority over the land in question remained utilized
for a long time and only after the year 2013 when the
constructions were demolished, the respondent No.4 came in
picture and the land over which the residential scheme was
developed, was given to respondent No.4 for development of
residential schemes for the weaker sections of the society
under the PPP Policy of 2013 of the State Government.
23. Once the acquisition proceedings have been brought to its
logical end with the making of the award in the year 1994,
the transfer of possession to the acquiring body in the year
1995 and the development of the acquired land for the purpose
for which it was acquired, the subsequent events which had
Page 13 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026
C/SCA/684/2019 (GJHC240775412018) JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2026
taken place after the year 2013, cannot be taken as a ground
for quashing of the acquisition proceedings so as to seek relief
of restoration of land prayed in the present petition.
24. The stand of the petitioners in the writ petition that the
acquired land belonging to the petitioners had not been
utilized for the public purpose for which it was acquired and
that it was diverted to a private builder for profiteering is
found to be without any basis. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the present case, reliance placed upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Royal Orchid
Hotels Limited (supra) is of no help. The writ petition is liable
to be dismissed as misconceived and is dismissed as such. No
order as to costs.
SD/-
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ)
SD/-
(D.N.RAY, J)
PRAVIN KARUNAN
Page 14 of 14
Uploaded by PRAVIN KARUNAN(HC00181) on Wed Sep 09 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 09 13:36:31 IST 2026