Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/914/2008 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 914 of 2008
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 930 of 2008
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 7794 of 2008
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 914 of 2008
To
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 7810 of 2008
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 930 of 2008
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 ?
=========================================================
SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
SURAJBEN
TEJAJI(WIDOW)AGE-50 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SUNIT SHAH ? G.P., MR D.R. CHAUHAN, MS TRUSHA PATEL AND MR HEMANT
MAKWANA A.G.Ps. for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR KM SHETH for
Defendant(s) : 1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4,1.2.5
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 14/07/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1.0 These
appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed by the
learned 4th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at
Navrangpura in Land Acquisition Cases No. 369/2003 to 372/2003 and
374/2003 to 386/2003 dated 09.05.2006 whereby, the Reference Court
awarded additional compensation @ Rs.67.20 per sq. metre as against
the claim of Rs.100/- per sq. metre by the claimants.
2.0 The
facts in brief leading rise to the filing of the present appeals are
as under;
2.1 The
appellant ? State proposed to acquire the agricultural lands of
Village Kadadara, Taluka Dehgam, District Ahmedabad for the purpose
of construction of a Canal under the Narmada Project. A Notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the
Official Gazette on 20.01.2000. Thereafter, the State Government made
a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on
06.12.2000. The interested persons were served with Notices for
determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared
before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation
at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. metre. However, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants at the rate
of Rs.6/- per sq. metre.
2.2 The
claimants, seeking higher compensation, raised a dispute, which,
ultimately, came to be referred to the competent Court by way of
References. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties,
the Reference Court was of the opinion that the previous award of the
Reference Court relating to the lands of the very same Village was a
relevant piece of evidence and furnished good guidance for the
purpose of determining the market value of the lands acquired in the
instant case. The learned Judge noticed that notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on
11.01.1990 for the lands acquired earlier; whereas, in the instant
case, the notification under the said Section was issued on
20.01.2000. He, thereafter, calculated the reasonable rise in the
price of the lands at the rate of 10% per annum. For earlier
acquisition of the lands, award at the rate of Rs.37.60 per sq. metre
was passed. Considering that aspect, the trial Judge derived a figure
of Rs.73.20 per sq. metre and ordered to pay the additional
compensation at the rate of Rs.67.20 per sq. metre over and above the
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of
Rs.6/- per sq. metre.
3.0 Learned
AGP for the appellant ? State submitted that the claimants had not
produced sale bills or purchase bills to show the expenditure
incurred by the claimants for fertilizers, seeds, medicines, etc. It
is further contended that even apart from the above bills, no
document is produced to prove that the lands in dispute were of equal
fertility, potentiality and having equal facilities as compared to
the lands for which L.A.R. No.705 of 1991 was passed. It is also
contended that the learned trial Judge has not discussed the aspect
as to how the said award was comparable. In response, Mr. K. M.
Sheth has submitted that as the lands of earlier Reference were of
the same Village, it could safely be presumed that the award was
comparable.
4.0 Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. Having gone through the entire record, I am of the opinion
that the compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge is
absolutely just and proper. The learned Civil Judge has rightly
considered the award passed in L.A.R. Case No. 705 of 1991 as the
same was comparable in facts and circumstances of the present case.
The said Reference was for the lands of the very same village having
similar fertility, potentiality and facilities. It may also be noted
that the said award is accepted by the acquiring authorities.
5.0 It
may also be noted that the acquiring authority had chosen not to
examine any witness on its behalf. Not only that but it has also not
led any documentary evidence to show that the market price of the
acquired lands were below Rs.73.20 per sq. metre. It is true that the
claimants could not make good their assertion that they were entitled
to get the compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. metre.
However, the record indicates that, by producing the comparable
award, they could prove that they were entitled to get the
compensation at the rate of Rs.73.20 per sq. metre. In view of the
time gap between two Notifications published under Section 4(1) of
the Act, the claimants would be entitled to benefit of reasonable
rise in prices of lands at the rate of 10% per annum. Hence, the
Reference Court has rightly awarded the additional compensation at
the rate of Rs.67.20 per sq. metre. I do not find much substance in
the contentions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader.
6.0 By
no stretch of imagination, Rs.73.20 per sq. metre can be termed as
excessive or exorbitant, when the State has compulsorily acquired the
said lands against the wish of the claimants and when they have lost
their livelihood. The award passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer granting the compensation at the rate of Rs.6/- per sq. metre
was arbitrary and atrocious and hence, the Trial Court has rightly
enhanced it to the tune of Rs.73.20 per sq. metre. It is well settled
principle of law that the previous award passed by the Reference
Court relating to the lands of same village, if has attained
finality, is a very good piece of evidence for the purpose of
determining market value of similar lands acquired from the same
village subsequently.
7.0 In
the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion
that the Reference Court did not commit any error in enhancing the
compensation. The Civil Court has passed a well reasoned judgment.
This Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the award
passed by the Reference Court. Hence, the appeals are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw
the decree in terms of this judgment immediately. The amount
deposited by the appellants at the time of admission of the appeals
may be disbursed to the respective claimants after verification of
their identity, if not disbursed so far.
8.0 Record
and proceedings, if is lying with the Registry of this Court, be sent
back to the trial Court concerned.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
ORDER
IN CIVIL APPLICATIONS
Since the main matters have
been disposed of, the civil applications shall not survive. They also
stand disposed of accordingly.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top