Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/3375/2005 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3375 of 2005
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3378 of 2005
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
GROUP
GENERAL MANAGER - Appellant(s)
Versus
PRAJAPATI
MADHAVLAL MAGANDAS & 1 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
RR MARSHALL for
Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1,
MR NEERAJ
SONI, LD.ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Defendant(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 08/12/2010
COMMON
ORAL JUDGMENT
This
group of appeals involve common questions on law and facts and
therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
These
appeals have been filed against the judgment and award passed by the
Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Case
No.3686 of 2003 and allied matters dated 06th November
2004, whereby, the references were partly allowed and the
appellant-ONGC was held liable to pay Rs.35.50 ps. per sq. metre as
annual rent to the original claimants.
The
facts in brief of the case are that the Land Acquisition Officer
made a proposal for temporary acquisition of the lands belonging to
the respondents, original claimants. After following due procedure,
the lands came to be acquired. Thereafter, awards came to be passed
by the competent authority fixing the amount of compensation.
However,
being dissatisfied with the awards, the original claimed raised
disputes by way of reference before the Court below. The reference
Court, after appreciating the documents on record, partly allowed
the same by way of the impugned orders. Hence, these appeals.
The
main contention raised by the appellant-Corporation is that the
reference Court has not appreciated the law governing the subject,
more particularly, Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, in its
proper perspective. It has been submitted that the reference Court
has also lost sight of several other important factors while
awarding additional amount of rent.
Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. Similar issues arose for consideration of this Court in a
group of appeals being First Appeal No.792/2003 & allied
matters. The said group of appeals came to be disposed of by this
Court, vide judgment and order dated 21st
March 2006, relevant portions of which are reproduced hereunder for
ready reference;
“5.2 On
the facts of the case, it is evident that the Reference Court has
also determined the further rent which issue was not before it. I am,
therefore, of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned
Advocate for the appellant that the observation or direction issued
by the Reference Court in the operative part of the orders require to
be quashed and set aside, is required to be accepted. If the said
direction is allowed to remain then it would amount to granting the
rent which is over the rent fixed by the appellant-O.N.G.C. from time
to time. Moreover, the same has been fixed without considering as to
what would be the future rent fixed by the appellant- O.N.G.C, which
is beyond the scope of reference. Hence if the said observation is
allowed to remain then, in that event such compensation would be much
more than the amount which has been found to be adequate by the
Court.
5.3 It
may be noted that the Reference Court was dealing with a particular
acquisition and it was not open for the said Court to pass an order
in respect of future rent. Such an observation on the part of the
Reference Court is clearly bad in law in view of the provisions of
Section 35(3) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the
observations or direction issued by the Reference Court with regard
to additional amount of compensation, requires to be quashed and set
aside.
6.0 In
the result, these appeals are allowed. The observation “over
the rent fixed by O.N.G.C. from time to time with the running
interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of due date of running
till the day of payment is made”, made by the Reference
Court in the operative part of the impugned judgments and awards, is
quashed and set aside. These appeals are allowed to the aforesaid
extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order
as to costs.”
From
the above order passed by this Court, it is clear that while dealing
with an application u/s. 35(3) of the said Act, the reference Court
is not empowered to pass an order in respect of future rent. Hence,
the impugned orders passed by the reference Court, being bad in law,
deserves to be quashed and set aside and the matter requires
reconsideration.
For
the foregoing reasons, present group of appeals are partly allowed.
The impugned awards passed by the reference Court are quashed and
set aside. The matters are remanded to the concerned reference Court
for consideration afresh on merits in view of the principle laid
down by this Court in the above decision and also being uninfluenced
of this order. The references, being very old, the concerned
reference Court is directed to dispose of the same expeditiously
preferably within a period of two years from the date of receipt of
writ of this order.
With
the above observations and directions, present group of appeals
stands disposed of. No costs.
It
is clarified that it will be open to the appellant-Corporation to
raise all the contentions before the lower Court regarding
maintainability of the Reference as well as limitation.
(K.S.
Jhaveri, J)
Aakar
Top