Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2328/2003 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2328 of 2003
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2329 of 2003
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
======================================
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 ?
======================================
GENERAL
MANAGER MEHSANA PROJECT
Versus
THAKORE
AMARAJI TALAJI & ANOTHER
======================================
Appearance :
MS
KJ BRAHMBHATT for the Appellant
RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) :
1,
Mr Neeraj Soni, Asst.
Government Pleader for the
respondent No.2
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 09/12/2010
COMMON
ORAL JUDGMENT
These
appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read
with Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and
award dated 15th September 2009 passed by the learned
Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.148
of 1998 to 150 of 1998.
2 The
appellant had acquired certain land on temporary basis of the
original claimants under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as the Act). After following procedure the
Specail Land Acquisition Officer vide his order dated 24th
September 1984 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.0.48 per sq.
mtr. per year in Compensation Case No.226 of 1984. Feeling aggrieved
by the said decision, the claimants filed references before the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana claiming additional
rental compensation, The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Mehsana has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.2.52
per sq. mtr. per annum and also ordered that the claimants are
entitled to 20% more compensation under the head of standing crops
etc. It is against the said award the present appeals have been
filed.
3. Learned
Advocate for the appellant submitted that the issue involved in these
appeals is squarely covered by the ratio laid down in the case of Oil
& Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Sankarji Hemaji & Anr
reported in [2008] 17 GHJ (523). The operative part of the said
Judgement reads as under:
“41. Similarly,
event he conduct and the action of the then Special Land Acquisition
Officer, who has referred the references applications in more than
100 cases to the reference court, though the applications for
reference were filed after a period of more than 20 years, is also
required to be considered seriously at the hands of Government. Under
the circumstances, Chief Secretary, Revenue Department is directed to
hold necessary inquiry against the concerned Special Land Acquisition
Officer with regard to his conduct and actions. Registry is directed
to communicate this order to the Chief Secretary, Revenue Department,
State of Gujarat for compliance.
42. For
the reasons stated hereinabove,all the appeals succeed and are
allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five
Thousand only) per each appeal. The impugned common judgement and
award dated 15.10.2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Mehsana (Mr. J.R. Shah) inland Reference Case Nos.3780 to 3784
of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that:
[i] The
reference applications submitted by the original claimants were not
maintainable.
[ii] The
reference applications were required to be dismissed on the ground of
limitation considering Article 137 of the Limitation Act.In the
alternate, the same were required to be dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches.
[iii] The
reference court has no jurisdiction to decide any other question
except the difference as to sufficiency of compensation in a
reference under sec.35(3) of the Act.
[iv] The
reference court has no jurisdiction to decide any other question
except the difference as to sufficiency of compensation in a
reference under section 35(3) of the Act.
[v] The
reference court has no jurisdiction to declare acquisition
proceedings and the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer under sec.35(3) of the Act as illegal and/or non-est in a
reference under section 35(3) of the Act.
[vi] The
reference court has no jurisdiction to declare possession of the
acquiring body as illegal and/or unauthorized and consequently the
reference court has no jurisdiction to declare the ONGC-acquiring
body as trespasser that too without framing any issue.
[vii] The
reference court has no jurisdiction toward compensation by way of
mesne profit declaring compensation of the acquiring body as illegal
and unauthorized.
[viii] The
reference court has also no jurisdiction to award statutory benefits
and or interest, as awarded by the reference court, as if the
acquisition proceedings is a permanent acquisition.
[ix] The
reference court has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute with
regard to sufficiency of the compensation beyond the period of three
years from the date of taking the possession.
[x] The
Reference Court has no jurisdiction to restore the possession of the
land to the original owners while deciding the reference under
sec.35(3) of the Act.”
4. The
ratio laid down in the aforesaid case is squarely applicable to the
facts of the case. Learned advocate for the respondents is not able
to point out anything to take a different view of the matter.
5. In
the premises aforesaid, these appeals are allowed. The judgment and
award impugned in these appeals is quashed and set aside. No order
as to costs. If the amount is deposited and not withdrawn, the same
will be paid to the appellant.
(K.S.Jhaveri,
J.)
*mohd
Top