Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2497/2002 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2497 of 2002
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2498 of 2002
=========================================================
PROJECT
MANAGER - Appellant(s)
Versus
SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
AJAY R MEHTA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MS KRINA CALLA, AGP for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
PRAKASH K JANI for Defendant(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 22/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of these appeals, the appellants has challenged the judgment and
order dated 18/11/2000 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge,
Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.2186 and 2187 of 1993
whereby the Reference Court has allowed both the reference cases and
directed the opponent to pay Rs.33,130/- to the claimant of Land
Reference Case No.2187 of 1993 and Rs.56,738/- to the claimant of
Land Reference Case No.2186 of 1993.
2. Facts
of the present case are that the land of the claimant had been
temporarily acquired by the appellant, ONGC Limited. Thereafter,
since the land was no longer required by the appellant ONGC the land
had been returned to the land owner on 26/11/1991 after making
panchnama of the land. It is further submitted that in regard to the
land which was returned to the claimant compensation case No.42 of
1991 has been initiated for payment of restoration charges to the
land owner. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his order
dated 20/7/1992 was pleased to publish an award awarding compensation
of Rs.12,722/- and Rs.16853/- for restoration charges of the lands in
question. Being aggrieved by the same the claimant had sought for a
References on the ground that the compensation awarded was
inadequate. The claimants claimed Rs.77,778/- and Rs.60,869/-. The
appellant had resisted the same by filing the written statement. The
learned Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana has been pleased to award
compensation of Rs.56,738/- and Rs.33,130/- under the head of
restoration charges. Hence, this appeals.
2. The
learned counsel for the appellants has mainly contended that in view
of Exh.-19, valuation report, the claimants are entitled for
Rs.45,852/- and Rs.27,135/-, after taking the valuation given by the
Land Acquisition Officer which was Rs.12,722/-
and Rs.16,853/- respectively. So, after deducting amount
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants of L.A. Case
No.2187 of 1993 will be entitled for Rs.33,130/- (Rs.45,852/- minus
Rs.12,722/-). Therefore, order passed by the Reference Court is just
and proper and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
However,
in case of L.A. Case No.2186 of 1993, the total amount of
Rs.27,135/- minus Rs.16,853/- comes to Rs.10,282/- whereas the
Reference Court has awarded Rs.56,758/-. In that view of the matter,
appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Claimants are entitled to
get Rs.10,282/- instead of Rs.56,758/- awarded by the Reference
Court. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent and the award
is accordingly modified. Amount deposited by the appellant, if it is
not withdrawn by the claimant be returned to the appellant.
First
Appeal No.2498 of 2002 is dismissed. First Appeal No.2497 of 2002 is
partly allowed.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
(ila)
Top