Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/827/2010 7 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 827 of 2010
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 836 of 2010
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
=========================================================
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 & 2 - Appellant(s)
Versus
RAVJIBHAI
RANCHHODBHAI PATEL - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
PK JANI GP with MR UMESH TRIVEDI ADDL. GP
for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 3.
MR KM SHETH for Defendant(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER
Date
: 23/04/2010
COMMON
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard
the learned advocates for the contesting parties.
Admit.
Mr. K.M. Sheth learned advocate has waived service of Notice of Rule
on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of the learned
advocates the appeals are taken up for hearing today.
The
present appeals arise from the common judgment and award dated 24th
September 2008 passed by the 12th Addition Senior Civil
Judge, Vadodara in the Land Reference Case Nos. 531 of 1998 to 541
of 1998 whereby the learned Reference Court has determined the
actual market price at Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. and has accordingly
awarded additional compensation. The Reference Court has also
awarded the consequential benefits like 12% increase on market value
from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act and
proportionate increase in solatium.
Certain
parcels of lands situate in village Malu were required for the
purpose of construction of Canal under Narmada Canals Project. The
notification under Section 4 for the said purpose was published on
29th November 1995 which was followed by notification
under Section 6 published on 8th August 1996. After
following the procedure the lands were acquired. The Land
Acquisition Officer conducted the proceedings for determining the
compensation under Case No. 126 of 1994 and on 20th June
1997 passed award under Section 11 of the Act. The claimants-land
owners were aggrieved by the said award which granted Rs. 4/- per
sq. mtr. for non-irrigated lands and Rs. 6/- per sq. mtr. for
irrigated lands. Hence, the claimant demanded reference under
Section 18 of the Act. The competent authority passed orders which
culminated in the aforesaid reference cases. The claimants filed
statement of justification and demanded compensation @ Rs. 30 per
sq. mtr. Upon conclusion of the proceedings and after taking into
consideration the submissions of the contesting parties the learned
Reference Court passed the impugned award determining the market
price @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. and enhanced/ awarded compensation on
that basis. The learned Reference Court, relied upon the earlier
award passed in Land Reference Case Nos. 2758 of 1996 to 2766 of
1996. Copy of the said award was produced on record by the claimants
at Exhibit 45. The Reference Court, in the said earlier cases, had
awarded additional compensation @ Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr.
It
emerges from the record that the said earlier award was passed in
respect of the acquisition of lands in adjoining village Hareshwar,
Taluka Shankheda. The said earlier award was passed by the learned
Reference Court in respect of Case No. 98 of 1992 (which,
subsequently culminated in Reference Case No. 2758 to 2766 of 1996,
after the competent authority referred the claim to the Court)
wherein the notification under Section 4 was issued on 6th
May 1993. By the award under Section 11 of the Act, the Land
Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation @ Rs. 2.20 per sq. mtr.
for non-irrigated lands and Rs. 3.30 per sq. mtr. for irrigated
lands. After taking into account the material available on record
the learned Reference Court, in the said earlier case, awarded Rs.
20/- per sq. mtr.
The
said earlier award in Land Reference Case Nos. 2758 of 1996 to 2766
of 1996 was challenged by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in
this Court by First Appeal No. 1925 of 2006 to 1933 of 2006 and this
Court (coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod) by order dated 3rd
July 2009 rejected the appeals and confirmed the award passed in the
said earlier cases.
The
claimants produced on record a copy of the said earlier award at
Exhibit 45. The said earlier award has been relied upon by the
learned Reference Court for making the impugned award. The learned
Reference Court has, in present case taken note of the fact that the
said earlier case the notification under Section 4 of the Act was
issued on 6th May 1993 whereas in present case the
notification under Section 4 was issued on 29th November
1995. Thus, there was difference about two years and six months
between the notification under the said earlier case and Section 4
notification in present case. The learned Reference Court by
following formula of allowing revisional increase @ 10% per year has
determined the market price/additional compensation @ Rs. 25/- per
sq. mtr.
The
appellants are aggrieved by the said award determining the market
price @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr.
Mr.
Trivedi assailed the impugned award on the ground that the learned
Reference Court has determined the market price without proper
application of mind and the impugned award is arbitrary and
erroneous. He submitted that the Reference Court is not justified in
determining the market price @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. He submitted
that the said determination is without any evidence on record.
Mr.
Sheth learned advocate for the opponent has submitted that the lands
in respect of which the said earlier award was passed are adjoining
lands and there was enough evidence available on record before the
learned Reference Court to notice and decide about the comparability
and similarity of the lands in present case and the lands which were
acquired earlier in respect of which the said earlier award came to
be passed. He submitted that in the said earlier case also the lands
were acquired for the same purpose-project i.e. Narmada Canals
Project and that therefore the learned Reference Court has not
committed any error in relying the said judgment.
It
is a well settled position that if any earlier award is made in
respect of acquisition of lands of the same or adjoining village
then it is good guideline and base for determining the market price
of subsequent acquisition of land.
As
mentioned earlier, the said earlier award was brought under
challenge by First Appeal No. 1925 of 2006 to 1933 of 2006. This
Court has, in the said judgment passed on 3rd July 2009,
examining the said earlier award and after examination, confirmed
the award and there is no dispute about the fact that the lands
acquired in case of the said earlier references were in the
adjoining village. There is also no dispute regarding relevant dates
i.e. the dates of notification under Section 4. There is also no
dispute about the fact that in both cases lands have been acquired
for the same purpose viz. for Narmada Project. The appellant herein
has not been able to point out any material on record which can
persuade and convince the Court to conclude that the lands in said
earlier case were not comparable with the lands in question in
present case. The learned advocate for the opponent has also not
been able to show any material from the record of the case to lead
to Court to hold that the conclusions of the learned Reference Court
are erroneous or unjustified.
At
this stage it is appropriate to note that the Reference Court has,
on the basis of the material on record, observed as follows:-
The
claimants have produced the map of Village Malu showing Simada of
the Village at Exh. 46. Here in this case, the simada of acquired
lands of cited case and present acquired lands are same and all the
lands are acquired under the same project of Narmada Canal and going
through the record of the case it appears that the acquired lands
under Exh. 45 and the acquired lands of present case are similar in
nature, therefore, the judgments produced vide Exh. 45 can be
looked into for the purpose of fixing the actual market price of the
acquired lands of Village Malu. (emphasis supplied)
Having
observed thus the learned Reference Court has, however observed
that:-
Now,
as per the above judgment, considering 10% appreciation per annum on
an amount of Rs. 25.00 per Sq. Mtr. for the period of 2 years and 8
months, the amount of actual market price of the acquired lands
works out to Rs. 25.33 per Sq. Mtr., and here in the present case,
the claimants have demanded a sum of Rs. 30.00 per Sq. Mtr. for
their acquired lands, which in view of above discussions, is on
higher side. So, I am of the vie that if a sum of Rs. 25.00 per Sq.
Mtr. instead of Rs. 25.33 per Sq. Mtr. is awarded to the claimants,
then it will be meet the end of justice. So, actual market price of
the acquired lands of all claimants are fixed at Rs. 25.00 per Sq.
Mtr. i.e. Rs. 2,50,000.00 per Hector.
The
appellants have not been able to assail the said findings and/or
have not been able to show any material, much less-evidence, to
prove that the conclusions are incorrect or contrary to record and
facts.
It
is also not the case of the appellants that there has not been any
revisional increase in the area where the lands in question are
situate or that the lands in question are situate in such remote
place where there could not have any revisional increase in the
lands @ 10%. The learned advocate for the claimant is justified in
submitting that the entire area of village Vadodara is highly
industrial area and in realty prices of the lands in the said area
have increased at the rate higher than 10% and that therefore there
is no error committed by the learned Trial Court in granting
revisional increase @ 10%.
On
overall consideration of the award and in view of the fact that
earlier award which (relied upon in present case) has been confirmed
by this Court in First Appeal No. 1925 of 2006 to 1933 of 2006 it is
not possible to hold that learned Reference Court has committed any
error. The appellants have not been successful in assailing the
award.
The
appeals, therefore, fail. Hence, the appeals are rejected. No cost.
(K.M.THAKER,J.)
Suresh*
Top