Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/394/2000 1/ 23 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 394 of 2000
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 402 of 2000
=========================================================
KRISHAK
BHARTI CO.OP.LTD. - Appellant(s)
Versus
GOMANBHAI
DURLABHBHAI AHIR & 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MANISH R BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR KM SHETH for Defendant(s) : 1 2.
MR ANAND L
SHARMA, AGP for Defendant :
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 04/02/2010
ORAL ORDER
Heard
learned senior advocate Mr. MR Bhatt on behalf of appellant Krishak
Bharti Cooperative Ltd (KRIBHCO), learned advocate Mr. KM Sheth
appearing for respondent claimants and learned AGP Mr. Sharma
appearing for respondent State Authority.
The
appellant has challenged award passed by Reference Court in Land
Reference Cases no. 223 of 1987, 204 to 210 of 1987 and 76 of 1987.
The main reference is Land Reference Case No. 223/87. These are
group of 9 cases of Land References filed by respondent claimants
arising out of common award passed by Land Acquisition Officer u/s
11 of Land Acquisition Act in respect to lands situated in village
Variav and claimants are also residing at Variav District Surat. The
Land Acquisition Officer has passed award on 3/6/1985. All pending
land reference cases consolidated in Land Reference Case no. 223/87.
According
to learned Senior advocate Mr. Bhatt, lands mentioned in Cl. no. 2
and 3 in award at page 7 are acquired by Government for a purpose of
Hajira Kribhco Railway Line. The first notification under section 4
of Land Acquisition Act has been published on 9/4/1981 and section 6
notification was published on 27/4/1982. The claimants have put
their case for inadequate compensation and demanded enhanced
compensation to range of Rs. 50/- per sqmt and 30% solatium claim
has been demanded by claimants. The objection filed by claimants was
heard by Land Acquisition Officer and fixed Rs. 3/- per sqmt.
Thereafter, claimants have aggrieved from award passed by Land
Acquisition Officer made references u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act.
The reference was being made by claimants through Collector to
District Court, Surat and references are sent to Reference Court.
According
to claimants, Land Acquisition Officer did not consider land’s
situation, its fertility and crops being grown up in said lands. The
lands which have been acquired is situated in Gujarat State and
District which is second number as industrial District and also
leading industries of art silk and diamond have been established in
city in Surat and property, which has been acquired is only one
Kilometer away from Surat. The land which has been acquired is joint
with Surat by constructing bridge at Rander and land which has been
acquired is connected with Surat City.
The
Land Acquisition Officer has not considered that land has an
irrigation facility and farmers are taking three time crops in one
year. The claimants are taking crops of Cotton, parvar, tuver (green
and dry), paddy, vegetables, sugercan, wheat, juwar, etc. By
cultivating cotton, they are getting 13 to 14 quintal of cotton and
per acre, they are getting production of 500 to 600 quintal and they
are getting huge profit. In same way, in parvar and juwar also, they
are getting huge profit, but this aspect is not considered by Land
Acquisition Officer.
According
to claimants, Land Acquisition officer has not considered that
property is fallen within residential zone of Suda Development area
and also same property is fallen in agricultural zone. The village
Variav is very near to Taluka Headquarter and there is nearest
railway station Utran which is 2 km away and Surat Railway Station
is situated 15 km away and it is connected with Surat Kosad Pucca
road and Variav village has all amenities like Electricity power
supply, drinking water, primary school, buses etc. Near to acquired
land, there are so many industrial company like Kribhco, NTPC, Essar
Steel, ONGC, Reliance, Indian Oil Corporation, GIDC and future
development of this acquired land has not been considered by Land
Acquisition Officer. At the time of fixing compensation amount and
also market rate which was prevailing at the time of land has been
acquired has not been considered. The sale instances produced by
claimants have also not been considered and i.e. how award passed by
Land Acquisition Officer Rs. 3/- per sqmt is too much less.
Therefore, References have been made by claimants with demand of Rs.
50/- per sqmt.
On
behalf of appellant, written statement was filed denying averment
made in claim petitions filed by claimants in references and
according to appellant Land Acquisition Officer has passed proper,
legal and valid award after giving opportunity to claimants. The
Land Acquisition Officer has visited site and after considering
fertility of lands, profitability and future development, passed
legal and valid award. According to appellant, Reference is required
to be dismissed.
From
the pleadings between parties as referred above, issues have been
framed by Reference Court. The written statement filed by claimants
exh 35. Initially, claimants have demanded Rs. 7, but subsequently
amendment was made in application and demanded Rs. 40/- per sqmt
being a market price of lands in question. Vide Exh.17, Ishwarbhai
Jivanbhai Patel has deposed that he is claimant of Land Reference
Case No. 204 of 1987 and he is giving evidence on behalf of all
claimants. He produced village form no. 7/12 from Exh.18 to 28,
valuation report of Government approved Valuer Shri Omprakash Pandya
at Exh. 38, certified copy of award declared by Land Acquisition
Officer in respect to village Chhaparbhata, Taluka Choryasi,
District Surat Exh.35 and claimants have also produced plan
sanctioned at Exh.36. The claimant Shri Ishwarbhai has deposed that
all lands are having irrigation facility. Over and above, in some
land, irrigation has been made by wells, electrical tubewell and
canal. The claimants are taking crops of cotton, Parval, Tuver
(green and dry), Paddy, Vegetables, Sugar can, Choda, wheat, juwar
etc. The land is black, goradu Jarayat and claimants are taking
three crops in a year. Thereafter, claimants have gave further
evidence in para 10, 11, 12 and 13 which are quoted as under:
10. The
claimants are also taking three crops of tuver in one season and per
acre, the yield of green tuver is around 40 to 45 quintals and the
rate at the time of prevalent was Rs. 500/- per quintal of green
tuver. Therefore, from green Tuver, they are getting Rs. 22,500/-
and from dry Tuver, they are getting Rs. 1800/-, total Rs. 24300/-
they are getting in a year.
11. The claimants
have also cultivated the cotton and they are getting 13 to 14
quintals of cotton out of their cultivation. The rate of cotton at
the time was around Rs. 500 to 600/- per quintal. Therefore, annual
yield of 14 quintals multiply by Rs. 500/-, total they are getting
Rs. 7000/-.
12. The claimants
are cultivating the vegetables like parvar, ladies finger, brinjal,
tomato, papdi etc. and per acre, they are getting 60 to 70 quintals
of vegetables in one season and rate of parvar was around Rs. 400/-
per quintal. Therefore, they would have got multiply Rs. 400/-,
total Rs. 2400/- per acre.
13. The claimants
are also cultivating Juwar and per acre, they are getting 50 to 60
quintals of crop in one season and per rate of quintal of Juwar
around Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- multiply by 50, total amount of Rs.
20,000/-. So, in considering all these various crops, annual yield
of each crop during the year, it is very much clear that the income
of the claimant is around Rs. 15000/- per acre and after deducting
the expenses of cultivation, labour charges, fertilizers, pesticides
etc. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court considered that in all two crops,
in a year is taken out of the land and that is why crops of tuver
and cotton or parvar and juwar, then annual income out of one acre
of land will be around Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- and if the
aforesaid amount is divided by 4000 for finding out the income out
of sq. metre, then it would come to Rs. 7-75 is multiplied by 10, it
would come to Rs. 77.50 per sq. mtr. So, it is also respectfully
submitted that the aforesaid amount Rs. 77.50 would come considering
that the claimants take two crops in a year though they actually
take three crops in a year out of the land in question. If we deduct
expenses 25% from the aforesaid amount, even then Rs. 58=12 ps. Per
sqmt, is a net income per Sq. metre to the claimants. However, in
present case, the claimants have only demanded Rs. 40/- per sq.
metre. So, in deciding the claim amount, the aforesaid ratio laid
down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is required to be determined in
fixing the price. and multiplier of 10 is a just and equitable one.
Before Reference Court,
Mr. Pandya Government Approved Valuer was examined by Exh.31 and he
has also given detailed evidence in para 14, 15, 16 and 17 which are
quoted as under:
14. Shri
Omprakash Pandya, Government approved valuer has also deposed before
this Court at Exh. 31. The valuation report is also produced in this
case and the Government approved valuer has come to the income
capitalization method and considered two crops in one year taken by
claimants that is why cotton and vegetables parvar and considering
the value of land for cotton would be around Rs. 19=75 per sq. metre
and Rs. 43.50 per sq. meter for vegetables parvar, the total value
comes to Rs. 62=77 Ps. Per sq. metre and thereafter, deducting 25%
amount under the head of expenditure for cultivation, the remaining
amount of Rs. 47=08 Ps. Per sq. metre has been arrived at by the
valuer after applying the multiplier of 10 as per the Judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in deposition, the said valuer has
also deposed that Rs. 47=08Ps, comes after applying multiplier of
10, and in the deposition of the said valuer, he himself has stated
that cropping pattern was adopted by the farmers of the village
Variav, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat, is the same and that is
why, the report of the valuer, is applicable to the present case.
15. The claimants
are selling their vegetables in Market and Agricultural Produce
Market Committee. Document has been produced before this Court to
show that the claimants are getting price of crops. Over and above,
the land which has been acquired is only 2 Km away from Surat City.
It comes in SUDA plan. This fact has been mentioned in the award of
the Land Acquisition Officer. In the award, it has also been
mentioned that the claimants’ properties fall in the residential
zone and some properties fall in the agricultural zone. Variav
village land is very nearer to Taluka Headquarter and the nearest
railway station is Utran which is 15 km. away from Surat Railway
Station. Variav is connected with Surat Kusad Pucca road and the
village has facility like electricity, power supply, drinking water,
primary schools, buses. The land of the village Variav is cultivated
by the claimants themselves and there is no tenancy. The village is
also nearer to Amroli bridge from which one can enter into Surat
city directly. Near to Variav Village, there are industrial
companies like KRIBHCO, NTPC, ESSAR STEEL, ONGC, RELIANCE, INDIAN
OIL CORPORATION, GIDC, JAHANGIR COTTON PROCESSING UNIT, TUVER pulses
Mills etc and the village Chhaparbhatha is situated only 2 km away
from the village Variav.
16. Chhaparbhatha
village land has been acquired for the housing purpose and the
owners have been given compensation at the rate of 49/- per sq.
metre. So, it is submitted that two villages are adjoining to each
other and the nature of the land is similar one. Therefore, the said
fact is required to be considered while determining the market value
of the land of the present claimants. The Land acquisition officer
himself has awarded Rs. 49/- per sq. metre to the owners of village
Chhaparbhatha. To show this fact, the claimants have produced the
documentary evidence of maps of SUDA and Urban Land Ceiling.
17. All the
documentary evidence has been produced, has been proved by the
applicant and considering the deposition all claimants are taking
out three crops in a year from the land in question, the demand made
by the claimants considering that they are taking two crops in a
year, the value of the land comes to Rs. 58/- after deducting the
expenses. However, the claimants have only demanded Rs. 40/- per sq.
metre which is reasonable, just and proper. No sale instances during
the period of notification under section 4 of the Act and some of
the sale instances which were there were relating to the land
situated far away from the village Variav. Therefore, when the
otherside has not produced any documentary evidence, as per the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court when no sale instances are
required to be considered and they are not proved by the vendor and
vendee and particularly, when the sale instances are not available
near the year of notification under section 4, considering the
market value of the land on the basis of capitalization methods, is
the best method for determining the market value of the land of the
claimants. Therefore, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment,
the present Reference may kindly be allowed.
The above facts stated by
claimants in their written statement exh 35 and also relying upon
decision of Apex Court reported in 1996 (3) SCC 592 and 1996 (1) SCC
631. Against this, it is necessary to note that appellant has not
produced any evidence before Reference Court. Not only that
appellant has not even produced any documents being rebuttal
evidence before Reference Court. None was examined before Reference
Court by appellant and no sale instances produced by appellant
before Reference Court. Only oral submission is made by advocate of
appellant Mr. MR Joshi before Reference Court.
According
to appellant, in support of claim made by claimants, no documentary
evidence is produced by claimants, therefore, their oral submissions
should not have to be believed by Reference Court but it is
necessary to note that claimant was cross examined by appellant
advocate before Reference Court.
Thereafter,
Reference Court in para 26 come to conclusion that land of Variav
village belongs to claimants is not similar to Chhaparabhata
village. Therefore, not to accept demand made by claimant because no
documentary evidence produced by claimant that lands belonging to
Variav village and Chhaparabhata village are similar in potential
value, fertility and utility but Reference Court has ignored
evidence of claimants which was cross examined by appellant advocate
where detailed evidence is given by claimants Exh.17 and village
Chhaparabhata is one kilometer away from village Variav. The
claimants has produced documentary evidence of map of Suda and Urban
Land Ceiling to justify or proving that land of both villages Variav
and Chhaparbhata are adjoining to each other and naturally all the
land is similar one. Against this evidence of claimant, there is no
rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. Even
though, finding is given by Reference Court that lands of both
village Variav and Chhaparabhata is not similar. On what basis, this
finding is given by Reference Court, is not discussed by Reference
Court in para 26. The Reference Court has also come to conclusion
that demand made by claimants based on village Chhaparabhata. The
claimants are not entitled Rs. 49/- because lands of both villages
are similar or not? For such no deposition is made before Reference
Court by claimants. This finding is given in para 30 of award. The
Reference Court has come to conclusion in para 31 and 32 which are
quoted as under:
31. From the
above submission of both the learned advocates and the documentary
evidence produced before this Court, I find that, deposition of
Ranjitbhai is believable and by the documentary evidence and 7/12
and the award produced in this case, it is quite clear that all
claimants’ land has a irrigation facility and a canal facility or a
well irrigation facility ad the claimants are taking in one year two
crops.
32. From the
documentary evidence, it is also clear that the claimants are taking
the crops of paddy, vegetables, lady finger, tuver (green), Jowar,
rice etc. Different claimants have taken their crop from their field
and from that, they have made some profit. This fact could has to
believe because whenever there is an irrigation facility. It is a
profitable to the agriculturist. No doubt, in present case, when the
land has been acquired, on that period, what type of crops the
claimants have taken from their field, for that, there is no
deposition and no documentary evidence. But, when irrigation
facilities available to the present claimants’ land, this fact has
been mentioned in award itself, it means that it is the Court’s duty
to find out the profitability when the irrigation facility available
to the claimant’s field.
The Reference Court has
not believed evidence of Government Approved Valuer Mr. Pandya
because he has taken charge Rs. 500/- only. The Reference Court has
also come to conclusion that claimant has not produced any
documentary evidence that how much quintal crops have been taken
from their crops. Thereafter, Reference Court has finally come to
conclusion in para 35 to 37, which are quoted as under:
35. In present
case, from the documentary evidence and oral evidence also, I find
that the submission of the total income and profit as per the
submission of the claimant, is unbelievable, then, it is a duty of
the Court to decide the income even though irrigation facility is
available to the present claimants’ field, naturally, this Court has
a discretion to decide when claimants have irrigation facility, to
find out a profit ratio what average irrigation facility has a
profit ratio and calculating the profit ratio of the irrigation
facility, I find that the claimants have failed to prove the profit,
even then, I find that at least, there will be a net profit income
of 2.90 Ps. Per sq. metre is profitable ratio and it is a nominal
income can be considered as a profit when an irrigation facility is
available to the field and as per 10 multiplier ratio is applicable
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. I have no hesitation that Rs.
10/- or 12/- compensation, is an adequate and proper. But, the Land
Acquisition officer has only granted the compensation Rs. 3/-, is
too much less amount and even though there is no evidence before
this Court, I have no hesitation if there is only monsoon crop is
available to the farmer, even then, there will be a more profit than
Rs. 1/- per sq. metre and that is why, I find that the compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is unbelievable and totally
less amount in comparison considering the potentiality of the
acquired land.
36. Over and
above, submission of the learned advocate for the claimants Shri
Qadri that Chhaparabhata village Rs. 49/- compensation should be
awarded, is also not applicable because there is no deposition
before this Court that Chhaparabhatha village land is similar to the
present claimants’ land which has been acquired and that is why as
per Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment, I can not grant Rs. 40/- to the
present claimants.
37. The Land
Acquisition Officer relied upon the sale instances in his award
which are far away from the acquired land and such sale instances,
can not be taken into consideration because when surrounding
properties or surrounding sale instances is not available, only
Court has discretion to fix the compensation price and from the
documentary evidence produced by the parties and from the oral
deposition, Court has come to the conclusion from the documentary
evidence, I find that the compensation amount awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer is too much less and the claimants have gone
fail to prove the compensation amount Rs. 40/- per sq. metre, this
is Court’s duty to fix the price and that is why, on broad principle
of natural justice and when no irrigation facility available to the
field, the farmers can not get less than Rs. 1/- profit per sq.
metre from his field. I find that Rs. 10/- is fit price to be
compensated to the present claimants for their acquired land and
that is why, I find that the present claimant is entitled to Rs.
10/- per sq. metre.
The contention raised by
learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt that 50% cultivation cost is not
deducted by Reference Court while determining or enhancing market
price of lands in question. He relied upon decision of Apex Court
reported in AIR 1997 SC 1845 and 2005 (6) SCC 454 and submitted that
Reference Court has not given any sufficient reason why he differ
from award passed by Land Acquisition Officer.
Learned
advocate Mr. Sheth emphasized that sufficient documents produced by
claimants i.e. village form vide exh 18 to 28 and that documents
have been proved by evidence of claimants Exh.17 and detail evidence
is given about crops available from lands in question having
irrigation facility and report of Government Valuer Exh.38 and award
passed by Land Acquisition Officer in respect to village
Chhaparabhata Exh.35 and evidence of Mr. Pandya Government Approved
Exh.31 not properly appreciated by Reference Court.
He
submitted that in monsoon season at least from lands in question
crops have been produced and received by claimants. He relied upon
decision of 2002 (2) GLH 435 and decision of Division Bench of this
Court in first appeal no. 1942/2003 decided on 19/6/2006.
Against
arguments made by learned advocate Mr. Sheth, learned senior
advocate Mr. Bhatt again emphasized that there is no relevancy about
similarity of lands of both villages Variav and Chhaparabhata
established by claimants and Reference Court has rightly not relied
evidence of Mr. Pandya Government Approved Valuer and merely on
presumption amount has been enhanced by Reference Court. Therefore,
it require to be quashed and set aside. However, against multiplier
of 10 applied by Reference Court, he is not raised any objection but
he suggested that instead of Rs. 10/-, Rs. 5/- may be reasonable
amount.
I
have considered submission made by both learned advocates and I have
perused award passed by Reference Court, Surat. It is necessary to
note that Reference Court has not properly dealt with matter on
merits. The evidence of claimant Exh.17 give detail about distances,
crops, potential value, fertility and utility of lands of both
villages Variav and Chhaparabhata and also gave evidence by claimant
that surrounding lands area covered by industrial area and various
industries are situated one kilometer away from village Variav and
village Variav is one or two kilometer away from Surat city and also
detail evidence have been given about quantity of crops obtained by
claimants three times in a year and two kilometer away Taluka head
quarter and railway station Utran and Surat Railway station is
situated 15 kilometer away. Against oral evidence of claimants,
facts which are stated on oath there is no rebuttal evidence
produced by appellant before Reference Court. The written statement
made by advocate of claimant exh 35 against which no rebuttal
evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. The evidence
of Exh.17 Ishwarbhai made clear before Reference Court as referred
in para 9 that all lands are having irrigation facility. Over and
above, in some lands, irrigation has been made by Wells, electrical
Tubewell and canal and claimants are taking crops of Cotton, Parval,
Tuver (green and dry), Peddy, Vegetables, Sugarcan, Wheat, Jawar
etc. The land is black Goradu Jarayat and claimants are taking three
crops in a year. The income also placed on record by oral evidence
of claimants in respect to each crops and how much amount they are
getting is also clearly established before Reference Court by
claimants. This aspect has been discussed by Reference Court in para
10 to 13 in detail.
So
in light of aforesaid evidence and considering fact that there is no
rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court,
Reference Court has come to conclusion that claimants are having
irrigation facility, therefore, must be getting profit from crops.
After calculating profit ratio of irrigation facility, minimum net
profit comes to Rs. 2.90ps per sqmt and nominal income is to be
considered as profit when irrigation facility is available to field
then ratio of 10 multiplier is applicable which comes to either Rs.
10 or Rs. 12/- which is found to be an adequate and proper.
Therefore,
considering income from monsoon season, crops which available to
farmer even then there will be more profit of Rs. 1/- per sqmt. So
Reference Court has considered minimum compensation which is
available from two crops Rs. 1/- per sqmt and applied 10 multiplier
and awarded Rs. 10/- while exercising discretionary power being
price to compensation to present claimants for their acquired lands.
The
contention raised by learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt that cost of
cultivation is not deducted by Reference Court can not be accepted
in light of fact that minimum Rs. 1/- per sqmt has been considered
by Reference Court being price of lands in question and 10
multiplier is applied then question of deducting 50% does not arise.
The Reference Court has given sufficient reason while differing with
award passed by Land Acquisition Officer and also considered that
from appellant side not a slightest evidence has been produced
either oral or documentary against evidence of claimants.
Therefore,
contention raised by learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt relying upon
aforesaid decision as referred above can not be accepted. The sale
instances which was considered by Land Acquisition Officer not
produced on record by appellant before Reference Court. Therefore,
para 10 from decision of Division Bench of this Court in First
appeal no. 1942/2003 to 1951/2003 dated 19/6/2006 are quoted as
under:
10. The
contention that the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
which has taken into consideration the sale deeds, should be
confirmed by this Court, cannot be accepted. It is well to remember
that the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under
Section 11 of the Act is nothing but an offer. Further, the award by
itself has no evidenciary value. It is true that while determining
the market value of the lands acquired, the Special Land Acquisition
Officer has referred to certain sale deeds. However, during the
course of examination of certain witnesses by the acquiring body,
those sale deeds could not be brought on record for consideration of
the Court. If the acquiring body and the government were of the view
that the market value of the lands acquired should be assessed on
the basis of sale deeds, nothing prevented them from producing the
sale deeds on record of this case. Under the circumstances, the plea
that on the basis of sale deeds referred to by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer in his award, determination of the market value
arrived at by the Reference Court should be set aside, has no
substance and is hereby rejected.
The head note D from
decision of this Court in case of Special Land Acquisition
Officer Vs. Kodarbhai Jenabhai & Ors reported in 2002 (2) GLH
435 which is also relevant is quoted as under:
D Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 S. 23 Market price Determination
on the basis of crop valuation It is only in absence of evidence
to the contrary that 50% of gross income should be deducted as cost
of cultivation to arrive at net profit and when evidence is
available the Court is bound to calculate the cost of cultivation as
per such evidence State of Gujarat V. Rama Rana, 1997 GLR (3) SC
1954 relied upon.
The
observation made by Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat and
Ors Vs. Rama Rana reported in 1997 (2) SCC 693. The relevant
head note is quoted as under:
Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 S. 23 Determination of compensation on
the basis of yield Rule for appreciation of evidence
Statistics from Agriculture Department as to nature of crops and
price prevailing at that time not produced However, overall
evidence cannot be rejected on that ground Court has a duty to
subject the oral evidence to great scrutiny and evaluate the
evidence objectively and dispassionately to reach a finding on
compensation Multiple of 10 should be applied and deduction of
50% towards cultivation expenses should be made Claimants are
also entitled to statutory benefits under amendment Act 68 of 1984.
In
light of aforesaid observation made by this Court and considering
evidence of claimant as given before Reference Court while supplying
all details of crops received by claimant from lands in question and
also having irrigation facility, electrical Tube well, and in
monsoon season also claimants are getting crops from lands in
question. The oral evidence of claimants having evidential value
unless some rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference
Court.
According
to my opinion, Rs. 3/- which has been awarded by Land Acquisition
Officer in such lands which is near to Surat city surrounding by
Industrial Corporate body and near Utran Railway station having
value to atleast get Rs. 10/- per sqmt as total amount which has
been awarded by Reference Court can not consider to be arbitrary,
unreasonable and unjust. The contention raised by learned senior
advocate Mr. Bhatt merely pointing out some error of Reference Court
where evidence of Valuer is not considered. The evidence of award
passed by Land Acquisition Officer in respect to village
Chhaparabhata is not considered by Reference Court but question is
that what evidence produced by appellant against evidence produced
by claimant. In such circumstances, Reference Court has rightly
relied upon evidence of claimant and even considering minimum income
which including 50% deducting of cultivation costs then 10
multiplier and Rs. 1/- per sqmt can not consider to be on higher
side. On the contrary, finding given by Reference Court is based on
legal evidence. Therefore, contention raised by learned senior
advocate Mr. Bhatt can not be accepted.
In
view of aforesaid discussion award passed by Reference Court can not
consider to be erroneous. On the contrary, looking to potential
value, fertility and utility of land in question which adjoining to
village Chhaparabhata and also near to Surat city Utran Railway
station and surrounding by number of industries of corporate body
which facts have been proved by claimants not denied by appellant.
Therefore,
no error committed by Reference Court which would require
interference by this Court. Hence, there is no substance in first
appeal. Accordingly, first appeal are dismissed.
(H.K.RATHOD,
J)
#Dave
Top