Simply put, for as many as nine years, the BBA kept on moving a proposal to the State Government to initiate acquisition of a piece of land in the city to shift the court building. One week ago, it dawned upon the BBA that it had no locus standi to move such a proposal.

The proposal had legal validity only if it came from the State legal department. The BBA has been `stayed' from moving any such proposal, except that it could surely make forceful contentions urging the government to allot the land to the court.

And this is one of the main reasons for delay in acquiring the land which had been reserved for the district court building by the Vadodara Urban Development Authority way back in 1976, and remained so even in the VUDA's revised plan in 1984 and 1996.

The 21.5 acres of land in Yavteshwar-Bhimnath compound bearing survey no. 1/A on the banks of river Vishwamitri had been marked in 1976 for the district court by the then VUDA chairman Chandrakant Mehta, himself a senior advocate.

But when the BBA headed by Narendra Tiwari moved a formal proposal for acquisition of the land in 1990, a number of other parties also staked a claim for the land, including some land sharks. The royal Gaekwad family also objected saying that the land belongs to them and is under dispute.

Though the BBA got all the court orders against acquisition vacated, it was surprisingly not aware of the fact that it was not the proper body for submitting a proposal for acquisition of land. It came to know only when Tiwari and in-charge district and sessions judge R M Parmar recently called on District Collector Anil Mukim for expediting the acquisition process.

Mukim told them that the proposal can be put up by one who will undertake construction of the building. Since administrative matters of courts are dealt with by the State Legal Department, the collector suggested Tiwari and Parmar to get a proposal moved through that department. He clearly told them that the land cannot be acquired on the proposal submitted by the BBA.

It was after this that Parmar last week wrote a missive to the registrar of the Gujarat High Court, asking him to take up the matter of acquisition of land with the secretary of the Legal Department.

When contacted, Mukim confirmed that Tiwari and in-charge district judge had met him in connection with land acquisition. He said that he could initiate acquisition proceedings only after receiving proposals from proper authorities which is the legal department in the present case.``We are awaiting the proposal'', he quipped. When told that a dispute over ownership of the land was already pending in the court, he said that ``dispute between private parties over the ownership of the land does not bar proceedings of land acquisition''.

``It can be barred only if the court specifically stays the acquisition of land which is not there in this case'', he stated. ``So far as the payment of compensation is concerned, it can be paid to the party whenever the case is decided in its favour by the court'', Mukim added.