FA/3385/2006 5/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3385 of 2006 To FIRST APPEAL No. 3395 of 2006 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 ? ========================================== SPECIAL LAQ OFFICER AND ANOTHER Versus NANUBHAI JETHABHAI AND ANOTHER ==========================================Appearance : MS TRUSHA K PATEL with MR SS SHAH for the Appellants MR GUNVANT R THAKAR for the Defendants ========================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 04/07/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In
the above captioned group of appeals filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (ýSthe Actýý) read with Section 96 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, what is challenged is the legality of
common award dated 21.04.2004 passed by the Joint District Judge,
Dhrangadhra in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.23 to 33 of 1998.
By the said award, the learned Civil Judge had awarded additional
compensation at the rate of Rs.8.80 per Sq. Mtr.
2. The
lands of village Acchhwada, Taluka Dasada, District Surendranagar
were acquired for the public purpose of Zinjuwada Branch Canal,
Narmada Canal Yojana. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was
issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on 27.2.1992.
Thereafter, the State Government made declaration under Section 6 of
the Act, which was published on 5.3.1993. The interested persons were
served with 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.10/- per Sq. Mtr.
However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to
the claimants at the rate of Rs.0.8 per Sq. Mtr. for non
non-irrigated lands and Rs.1.20 per Sq.Mtr. for irrigated lands.
3. The
claimants, seeking higher compensation, submitted an application
under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition
Officer to refer their cases to the Court for the purpose of
determining the just and fair compensation. Accordingly, the
reference was made to the Joint District Court, Dhrangadhra; where
they were registered as Land Reference Case Nos.23 to 33 of 1998.
4. On
behalf of the claimants, one Dashrathbhai Sadhu was examined at
Exh.32. The claimant in his deposition had referred an award passed
in Land Acquisition Reference No.1571 of 1987. At his instance, the
said award is exhibited. The said award is for the lands of village
Varmol for which notification under Section 4 was published on
10.11.1986. The claimant deposed that the lands acquired in the year
1986 and the lands for which the Reference Nos.23 to 33 of 1998
were filed, were only at a very short distance. Varmol is the
adjoining village of village Acchhwada. Though the said witness was
cross-examined for the learned counsel for the acquiring
authorities, nothing substantial could be elicited, nor the
assertions made by the witness could be demonstrated to be false.
5. The
claimants had also placed reliance on the award passed in L.R.C.
No.660 of 1998 for village Jinjunvada. The Notification under Section
4 was issued in the said case on 25.7.1986 and the compensation was
given at the rate of Rs.6/- per Sq.Mtr.
6. The
appellant had examined one Mr. Mahadevbhai Narayanbhai Jhadav, Talati
of Acchhawada. The Talati had deposed that village Acchhawada,
Varmol, Jinjuwada are the adjoining villages.
7. On
appreciation 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 adjoining village, was a relevant
piece of evidence and furnished good guidance for the purpose of
determining of the market value of the lands acquired in the instant
case. The learned Judge noticed that notification under Section 4(1)
of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 04.10.1986 and
25.7.1986 for the lands acquired earlier; whereas, in the instant
case, the notification under the said Section was issued on
27.02.1992. He, thereafter, calculated the reasonable rise in the
price of the lands at the rate of 10% per annum. For earlier
acquisition of the lands, award at the rate of Rs.5.5 and Rs.6/- per
Sq. Mtr. respectively were passed. Considering that aspect, the Trial
Judge derived a figure of Rs.10/- per Sq. Mtr.
8. I
have heard Ms. Trusha Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the appellants and Mr. Thakar, learned Counsel for the claimants. Ms.
Patel submitted that the applications to make the reference were time
barred and hence, they should not have been entertained. She has
further contended that the claimants had not produced sale bills or
purchase bills to show the expenditure incurred by the claimants for
fertilizers, seeds, medicines, etc. She further contended that even
apart from the above bills, no document is produced to prove that the
lands in dispute were of equal fertility, potentiality and having
equal facilities as compared to the lands for which L.A.R. No.1571 of
1987 and L.A.R. No.660 of 1998 were passed. She had contended that
the learned Trial Judge had not discussed the aspect as to how the
said awards were comparable. She has further contended that the
cross-examination of the claimant revealed that no land of the
village of which the lands were acquired was sold at higher price.
Even valuation made in Jantri is not considered. She tried to
contend that the award passed in LAR No.1571 of 1987 was not
comparable. She has further contended that even if the said award is
compared, the claimants would not be entitled to compensation at the
rate of Rs.10/-. On calculation, as she submitted, the market price
would not be more than Rs.8/- per Sq.Mtr.
9. In
response to her contentions, Mr. Thakar had submitted that as the
lands of earlier reference were of adjoining village, it could
safely be presumed that the awards were comparable. He had further
contended that the Civil Court had rightly compared the award passed
in LAR No.660 of 1998 and had rightly awarded Rs.10/- per Sq.Mtr. He
further contended that the applications filed to make the reference
were not time barred. He had submitted that the learned Civil Judge
has considered this aspect and only after close scrutiny, the Civil
Judge has held that the applications were filed in time.
10. This
Court has also considered the record and proceedings supplied by the
learned counsel for the claimants which includes the documentary
evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court. Having
gone through the entire record, I am of the opinion that the
compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge was absolutely just
and proper. The learned Civil Judge has rightly considered the awards
passed in LAR Case No.1571 of 1987 and LAR Case No.660 of 1998 as
the same were comparable in facts and circumstances of the present
case. The said references were for the lands of the adjoining
villages, having similar fertility, potentiality and facilities.
Earlier awards cannot be discarded on the ground that it is not for
the lands of the same village. What is required to be considered is
the similarity in facilities, fertility and potentiality.
11. It
is well settled principle of law that the previous award passed by
the Reference Court relating to the lands of adjoining village, if
has attained finality, is a very good piece of evidence for the
purpose of determining market value of similar lands acquired from
the same village subsequently. In the facts and circumstances of the
present case, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court
did not commit any error in enhancing the compensation. The Civil
Court has passed a well reasoned judgment. This Court, therefore,
finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Reference
Court in L.A.R. No.23 to 33 of 1998.
12. For
the foregoing reasons, the above captioned appeals are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw
the decree in terms of this judgment immediately. The remaining
amount of compensation, if not disbursed, may be disbursed to the
respective claimants after verification of their identity.
13. Office
is directed to send R & P to the concerned authority.
(BHAGWATI
PRASAD, J.)
omkar