FA/370/2008 5/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 370 of 2008 To FIRST APPEAL No. 382 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD ========================================== 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 ? ========================================== SPL. LAND ACQ. OFFICER AND ANOTHER Versus JESHABHAI TIRKAMBHAI ==========================================Appearance : MR RC KODEKAR, Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellants MR AJ PATEL for the Defendants ========================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 04/07/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By
filing these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 (ýSthe Actýý for short) read with Section 96 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, the appellants have challenged the legality of
common judgment and award dated 31.03.2006 rendered by the learned
4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at
Navrangpura, in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 354 of 1999, 356 to 366 of
1999 and 369 of 1999 whereby the claimants have been awarded
additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.24.00 per Sq.Mtr.
for their acquired lands over and above the compensation offered to
them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.0.70
paise and Rs.1.05 paise per Sq.Mtr. by his award dated 20.03.1998.
2. The
Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Saurashtra Branch Canal,
Division No.2/6, Botad proposed to the State Government to acquire
the lands of village Keriya, Taluka Dhandhuka, District Ahmedabad for
the public purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. On perusal of
the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands
mentioned in the said proposal were likely to be needed for the
public purpose. Therefore, a notification under Section 4 of the Act
was issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on
04.09.1995. Thereafter, necessary inquiry was conducted under Section
5A(2) of the Act. On the basis of the report submitted by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was
made, which was published in the Official Gazette on 31.08.1996.
The interested persons were thereafter served with the 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.50/- per Sq.Mtr. for their agricultural land.
However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated
20.03.1998, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of
Rs.0.70 paise and Rs.1.05 paise per Sq.Mtr. The claimants were of the
opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer was totally inadequate. Therefore, the claimants
submitted applications under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Land
Acquisition Officer to refer their cases to the Court for the purpose
of determination of just amount of compensation payable to them.
Accordingly, the references were made to the District Court,
Ahmedabad, where they were registered as Land Acquisition Cases
referred to hereinabove.
3. On
behalf of the claimants, Shri Jagabhai Rupabhai was examined at
Exh.38. The witness has deposed that the lands in question were
acquired for the purpose of Narmada Project and the lands of the
claimants are situated adjoining to each other. The witness has
deposed that all the acquired lands are equal and fertile land and
having irrigation facilities by wells and bore-wells. It is also
stated by this witness that the village has milk society,
co-operative societies, post office, primary school, pucca road,
telephone facilities, etc. The witness has also deposed that the
claimants are taking two-three crops and earning net agricultural
income of Rs.40,000/- per vigha per year. It is further stated
by the witness that the lands of adjoining village Dharpipla were
acquired earlier for the said purpose pursuant to notification
issued under Section 4 of the Act on 23.07.1984 wherein the Reference
Court, by its judgment and award dated 27.01.1997 rendered in L.A.
Case Nos. 72 to 101 of 1989, awarded total compensation at the rate
of Rs.12.50 paise per Sq.Mtr. Though this witness was cross-examined
by the other side, nothing substantial could be brought on record.
On
behalf of the appellants, Shirishbhai Kantibhai Vakhariya was
examined at Exh.50. He has deposed that he was with the division
since five years and had seen the lands of the village. In his
cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he has no personal
knowledge about acquisition. It is also admitted by this witness that
in village Dharpipla and village Keriya, same crops are possible and
that one another canal is passing through village Keriya.
4. On
the basis 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 village Dharpipla rended in Land
Acquisition Case Nos. 72 of 1989 to 101 of 1989 (Exhibit 36) was a
relevant piece of evidence for the purpose of determining the market
value of the lands acquired in the present case. The Reference Court
noticed that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
published in the Official Gazette on 23.07.1984 for acquiring the
lands of village Dharpipla whereas in the instant case it was
published in the Official Gazette on 04.09.1995 and as there was time
gap about 11 years, the claimants were entitled to reasonable rise
in price of lands at the rate of 10% per annum. In the ultimate
analysis, the Reference Court has awarded additional amount of
compensation at the rate of Rs.24/- per Sq.Mtr. to the claimants by
the impugned award, which has given rise to the present appeals.
5. Heard
the learned advocates for the parties. This Court has perused the
judgment of the Reference Court and other relevant evidence adduced
by the parties before the Reference Court.
6. From
the record of the case, it appears that the claimants have never
claimed enhanced compensation either on the yield basis or
comparable sale instances. What was relied upon by the claimants was
previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of
village Dharpipla (Exhibit 36). It is also reported that the award
Exhibit 36 in respect of the lands of village Dharpipla is accepted
by the Government and the amount is also paid. From the evidence, it
appears that the lands of both the villages, i.e. Dharpipla and
Keriya are adjoining to each other and there is minor distance
amongst them. It is also evident that fertility of the lands of both
the villages is similar. It is well settled that previous award of
the Reference Court relating to a village, which has attained
finality can be considered to be a good piece of evidence for the
purpose of determining the market value of similar lands acquired
subsequently from the adjoining village. As stated above, the award
of the Reference Court relating to the lands of adjoining village
Dharpipla has attained finality. Therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that no error was committed by the Reference Court in placing
reliance on the previous award of the Reference Court for the purpose
of determining the market value of the lands acquired in the instant
case and giving 10% rise per year. On re-appreciation of the
evidence adduced before the Reference Court, this Court is of the
view that the finding recorded by the Reference Court that the
claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation on the basis of
previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of
adjoining village cannot be interfered with and deserves to be
upheld.
7. In
view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals deserve to be dismissed
and are accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and award of the
Reference Court is hereby confirmed. There shall be no orders. The
Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment as
early as possible.
Office
is directed to send R & P to the concerned authority.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)
omkar