Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/3631/2010 1/ 5 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING No. 3631 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL No. 5882 of 1995
To
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING No. 3648 of 2010
In
FIRST APPEAL No. 5899 of 1995
===============================================================
PATEL
VITHALDAS JORDAS, DECEASED THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISTRICT
PANCHAYAT, MEHSANA & 2 - Respondent(s)
==============================================================
Appearance
:
MR
BS PATEL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR AMIT M PANCHAL for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS
JIRGA JHAVERI AGP IN CIVIL APPLICATION Nos. 3631 to 3641 2010 and Ms.
V.S. PATHAK IN CIVIL APPLICATION Nos. 3641 to 3648 of 2010 for
Respondent(s) : 2,
None for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 03/05/2010
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule.
Mr. Amit Panchal learned Counsel waives service of rule on behalf of
the opponent No. 1. Ms. Jirga Jhaveri learned AGP waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the opponent No. 2 in Civil Application
Nos. 3631 to 3641. Ms. V.S. Pathak learned AGP waives service of
notice of rule on behalf of the opponent No. 2 in Civil Application
Nos. 3641 to 3648 of 2010. With the consent of the learned advocates,
the applications are taken up for hearing today.
2. The
aforesaid applications have been filed seeking below mentioned
relief/s:-
5
(A)…..
(B)
Your Lordships will be pleased to direct the office to place First
Appeal No. 5882 of 1995 for final disposal at an early date as may be
deemed fit by this Honourable Court;
(C)…..
(D)…..
3. The
applicants have requested that though the Reference Court has made
award in their favour since February 1995 with regard to acquisition
of land effected in 1981, they have still not received full
compensation as awarded by the Reference Court.
4. The
applicants urge that the connected appeals i.e. appeals arising from
the acquisition of the lands from the same village for the same
project, First Appeal Nos. 2126 of 1992 to 2139 of 1992 have been
dismissed by the Court by judgment dated 6th November
2009. The applicants, while relying on the said judgment on the
ground that the lands under acquisition in both the group of appeal
are from the same village and were acquired for the same project,
preferred present applications with a request that present appeals
also may be decided on the same lines as in the order dated 6th
November 2009.
5. In
the said group of appeals, this Court dealt with the award of the
Reference Court in LAR Nos. 19 to 32 of 1984. Whereas in the award on
hand in captioned group of appeals, the Reference Court has relied
upon the same award of the Reference Court in the said LAR Nos. 19 to
32 of 1984.
6. The
applications were first listed on 26th April 2010. On 26th
April 2010 the learned Counsel for the opponent-panchayat was not
present since his name did not appear in the cause list. Considering
the fact that the name of the learned Counsel appearing for the
opponent was not mentioned, by the order dated 26th April
2010 the applications were adjourned to 30th April 2010.
The learned AGP appearing for the opponent No. 2 was requested to
verify and confirm whether the impugned award would be covered by the
judgment dated 6th November 2009 or not.
7. On
30th April 2010 the name of the learned Counsel for
opponent-Panchayat was reflected, however learned Counsel was not
present. The learned AGP has confirmed that the award would be
covered by the judgment dated 6th November 2009 in view of
the fact that lands acquired were from the same village and for the
same project and while passing the impugned award the Reference Court
relied upon the award which was subject matter of the group of first
appeals decided by the judgment dated 6th November 2009.
8. However
in view of the absence of the Counsel for the opponent-Panchayat who
had filed sick-note, the applications were adjourned to today.
9. In
the award impugned in the present appeal the learned Reference Court
has, in para 8 observed as follows:
…..claimants
have relied upon the award given by learned Assistant Judge in L.A.R.
No. 19/84 to 32/84. The said lands were acquired under same award
given by Special L.A.O. under which lands of present claimants are
acquired. The lands were acquired for the same scheme and the lands
are situated near each other. The claimants of said award had
presented their petitions earlier and said petitions were forwarded
in the year 1984 in the Court by Special L.A.O. But present petitions
were forwarded in the year 1990 only. So the said petitions were
decided earlier and award is produced at Ex. 2/1. Learned Assistant
Judge had visited the site personally and had made notes of the land
acquired and the surrounding area and had relied upon the sale
instances which are also produced on record by the claimants….
……In
present case the lands under award produced at Ex. 21 are situated
adjoining to the lands of present claimants and were acquired for
same road and under same award. So, the said award is very much
relevant for deciding the market value of present claimants also….
10. The
learned Counsel for the opponent-Panchayat has submitted that he
needs time to verify the factual aspect as he has not been able to
verify the record.
11. In
view of the fact that the award passed in 1995 and the appeals filed
since August 1994 are pending which has made the applicants prefer
present applications. Considering this aspect and the submission of
the applicant-claimants that the subject matter of the appeals is
covered by the order of this Court passed on 6th November
2009, the appeals deserve to be examined and decided at an early
date. However, the learned Counsel for the opponent-Panchayat has
requested for time to verify the record.
12. Hence,
following order is passed.
13. The
relief prayed for in para 5(A) is granted. The registry shall list
the First Appeals for final hearing on 6th
May 2010. It is clarified that any leave-note or sick-note by
either side will not be considered.
14.
With the aforesaid direction and clarification, the applications are
allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(K.M.THAKER,J.)
Suresh*
Top