Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1005/2007 9/ 9 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1005 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
DEPUTY
COLLECTOR & LAQ OFFICER & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
CHUNILAL
MAGANBHAI & 1 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
SHACHI MATHUR, AGP for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR VIJAY N RAVAL for
Defendant(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 30/03/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
means of filing this appeal, the appellants, who were original
opponents in Land Reference Case No. 215/1999, tried and decided by
the Ld. Civil Judge [S.D.], Panchmahals at Godhra [for short ‘the
Reference Court’], have challenged the legality and correctness of
the impugned judgment and award rendered on 01/05/2005. The
respondents are original claimants in the aforesaid land reference
case.
2. Certain
agricultural lands of the respondents situated in the outskirts of
village Tadiya, Taluka Halol, District Panchmahals came to be
acquired for the public purpose of “Kadana Project”.
The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act [for
short ‘the Act’] was published on 7/5/1984 and the notification under
section 6 of the Act was published on 6/2/1985. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry to determine just and fair
amount of compensation and delivered his award under section 11 of
the Act on 27/2/1986 and offered the compensation @ Rs.00-70 ps., per
sq.mtr., to the claimants. The claimants felt that the amount
offered by way of compensation to them was grossly inadequate and
insufficient and, therefore,
they applied for reference and their reference was numbered and
registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 215 of 1999.
3. Before
the Reference Court, both the parties adduced their oral and
documentary evidence. The Reference Court, took into consideration
one previous award passed in L.A.R. Case NO. 25/1988 wherein the land
of the same village i.e. Tadiya was acquired and in said case, the
notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 7/6/1984 and
in the said case, the Reference Court had awarded additional
compensation @ Rs.7/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court, therefore,
partly allowed the reference case and awarded additional compensation
@ Rs.7/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court also awarded statutory
increases, namely 12% p.a interest as contemplated under section 23
[1-A] of the Act and the solatium as contemplated under section 23
[2] of the Act. The Reference Court granted running interest as
provided under section 28 of the
Act. The appellants – Special Land Acquisition Officer and the
Executive Engineer, who were original opponents in the said reference
case felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation was on
higher side and, therefore, preferred this appeal.
4. Ms. Shachi Mathur, Ld.
AGP for the appellants – original opponents submitted that the
impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court is
contrary to law and facts on record. It is submitted that the
reference was presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation
and was time barred. It is also submitted that the Reference Court
erred in relying upon the previous award exh. 13 and mechanically
awarded the compensation as it was awarded in the previous award. The
Reference Court did not appreciate in true perspective the evidence
adduced by the claimants and the opponents as to whether the land
acquired in the previous award was identically similar to the lands
of the claimants or not. That such mechanical approach on the part of
the Reference Court resulted into the exorbitant and inflated award.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer had offered the compensation
after taking into consideration all the relevant material and the
factors. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed.
5. Per contra, Mr. VN
Raval, Ld. Advocate for the respondents – claimants fully
supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference
Court. It is submitted that the Reference Court took into
consideration the previous award which was in connection with earlier
acquisition of the land of the same village, namely Tadiya. That the
Reference Court also considered the oral evidence of claimant
recorded at exh. 14 regarding the potentiality and fertility of the
lands under acquisition. It is submitted that plea of limitation was
not raised by the appellants – opponents before the Reference
Court nor issue to that effect was framed. Hence, it is submitted
that the appeal may be dismissed.
6. Considering the impugned
judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court, it transpires
that the Reference Court relied upon earlier award, copy whereof was
produced at exh. 13 and considered said previous award as comparable
award. The previous award exh. 13 was passed in Reference Case No.
25/1988, which was passed on 31/3/1993. In the said case, the
notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 7/6/1984;
whereas in the instant case, the notification under section 4 of the
Act was published on 7/5/1984. Thus, the time gap is very negligible
i.e. one month. Over and above this, the previous award was passed
pertaining to the acquisition of land of the same village Tadiya.
While appreciating the comparable award exh. 13 and the similarity of
lands of the claimants and the land acquired in the earlier award,
the Reference Court took into consideration the oral evidence adduced
by the claimant. The Reference Court in the above view of the matter,
ultimately came to the conclusion that in the instant case the
claimants were entitled to recover compensation at the same rate to
which the claimants of L.A.R. Case No. 25/1988 received. Ultimately,
the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the claimants were
entitled to get additional compensation @ Rs.7/- per sq.mtr. It is
true that in the judgment and award, at one place Reference Court
observed that if the land was acquired @ Rs.8-20 ps., per sq.mtr.,
that could have been more reasonable, proper and just. However, that
does not mean that the Reference Court fixed the market rate of the
acquired land at Rs.8-20 ps., per sq.mtr.
7. In the memo of appeal as
well as during arguments on behalf of the appellants, a contention is
raised about the limitation. The impugned judgment and award, if
minutely read, nothing transpires that any such contention regarding
the limitation was raised by the appellants – opponents before
the Reference Court. Therefore, it appears that no issue came to be
framed by the Reference Court pertaining to the limitation. If at all
the appellants – opponents had raised such dispute before the
Reference Court, the Reference Court would have framed issue
regarding limitation or else the appellants – opponents would
have requested the Reference Court to frame the issue regarding the
limitation. Perusing the impugned judgment and award, nothing
whatsoever was done by the opponents.
8. In the above view of the
matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court did not
err in relying upon the comparable award exh. 13 rendered by the
Reference Court earlier in point of time in L.A.R. Case No. 25/1988.
Nothing is either contended in the memo of appeal nor it is contended
on behalf of the appellants at the time of the arguments that the
previous award exh. 13 passed on 31/5/1993 in L.A.R. Case No. 25/1988
has not attained finality. Under such circumstances, the previous
award relied upon by the Reference Court cannot be said to be a
mistake or error.
9. In the above view of the
matter, this Court has not found any ground to interfere with the
impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court and the
appeal deserve dismissal.
10. For the foregoing
reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
[
J.C. UPADHYAYA, J.]
* Pansala.
Top