Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/342420/2008 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3424 of 2008
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3460 of 2008
=========================================================
SPL.LAQ
OFFICER (NARMADA YOJNA) & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
JARAMBHAI
BALABHAI & 1 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
TRUSHA PATEL, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
None for Defendant(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 05/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgement
and awards dated 12.05.2004 passed by the Joint District Judge,
Bharuch in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 993 to 1029 of 2002 whereby the
reference court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 1500/- per
Are for acquired land.
2. The
land of the original claimants situated at Village Vaviyala, Bharuch
was acquired for the public purpose of construction of Canals. The
notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was
published on 31.3.1994. After following due procedure, the Special
Land Acquisition Officer by his awards dated 16.08.1995 &
30.10.1995 awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of
Rs. 200/- per Are as against the claim of the claimants.
2.1 Being
aggrieved by the said award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
the original applicant filed reference under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act before the District Judge, Bharuch. The reference
court passed the aforesaid award. Hence the present application.
3. Ms
Trusha Patel, learned AGP appearing for the State has submitted that
the reference court ought to have seen that the claimant has failed
to prove that the compensation awarded by the special land
acquisition officer is inadequate and not proper.
4. This
court has gone through the documentary evidence placed on record
alongwith the award of the reference court. The reference court has
relied upon Ex. 16 produced by the original claimants and after
considering the evidence in detail and observed in para 20 as under:
20.
Now in view of the above settled position of law, the date on which
the notification under Section 4 is published is the relevant time,
for fixation of compensation. It appears from the judgemnet produced
at Exh. 16 before me of the case of Sanjroli in L.A.R. Case No.
191/93(Group) a Notification U/s. 4 was published on dt. 4-10-90 and
in this case before me, the notification U/s. 4 of the Act is
published by the L.A.O. On 31/3/94, 31/3/94 & 31/3/94
respectively therefore in my humble view claimants are entitled to
10% rise in the market value per year on Rs. 1100/- as this price was
prevailing in market of Rs. 1100/- of the sim of village Sanjroli Rs.
1100/- per Are in the year 1990 so according to Mr. Rana in this case
while fixing the market value price of the land in question for
acquisition, base of market value keeping in mind Rs. 1100/- is
market price in the year 1990 and thereafter in the present reference
the promulgation is issued respectively on 31/3/94 so about 4 years
time has been elapsed, so the difference of price per year at the
rate of 10% per Are calculating it into 4 years i.e. Exh. 16’s land
is acquired in 1990 and the market price was fixed by the reference
court that would be 1100/- x 10% = Rs. 110/- per year and on
calculating it into 4 years the amount comes to Rs. 1100/- per ARE.
So in the year 1994 at the time of promulgation of the notification
U/s. 4 the land-loser’s land will fetch original amount of Rs. 1100/-
per ARE but Rs. 440/- rise in the price at the rate of 10% that comes
to Rs. 1100/-+RS.440/- = Rs. 1540/- is a price rise in the year 1994
of the claimant’s land per ARE. In my humble view, keeping in mind
view of Rs. 1540/- the round figure of Rs. 1500/- would be the price
rise in the year 1994 in lands in question.
5. The
reference court has come to the conclusion in LAR No. 191/93, the
reference court therein has awarded Rs. 1,100/- per Are and that
there was a difference of nearly 4 years. Therefore, keeping in mind
these relevant aspects, approximately 10% increase was given. I am
in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings
arrived at by the reference court and therefore do not see any reason
for causing interference in the matters. These appeals are therefore
required to be dismissed.
6. In
the premises aforesaid, first appeals are dismissed. No order as
to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top