Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/928/1987 3/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 928 of 1987
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
KHANT
BACHU KHIMA & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR AMAR D
MITHANI for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7,2.2.8
MR NJ SHAH, AGP for
Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 02/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
This
appeal by the original claimants has been filed under Sec.54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against the judgment and award dated
29-3-1985 passed by the
learned 2nd
Extra Asstt. Judge, Junagadh in Land Acquisition Reference Case
No.49 of 1981.
The
facts in short are that lands of the claimants were acquired by
the State of Gujarat for Uben Irrigation Scheme in 1979 under a
notification under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter
referred to as `the Act’) published on 22-2-1979 Thereafter, a
notification under Sec.6 was published on 23-6-1979 in the Govt.
Gazette and notification under Sec.9 of the Act was also issued
inviting objections from interested persons. The Land
Acquisition Officer passed the award on the basis of evidence
produced before him awarding compensation for the irrigated lands,
non-irrigated lands and waste lands. Being aggrieved by the same,
the claimants moved references under Sec.18 of the Act and the
Reference Court by the impugned order not only enhanced
compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer but
also awarded compensation for standing trees existed in the lands of
the claimants along with solatium under Sec.23(2) of the Act and
interest @ 9% p.a. However, no amount was granted under Sec.23(1-A)
of the Act. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, present
appeal is preferred by the original claimants.
Heard
learned counsel, Mr.Amar D.Mithani for the appellants and learned
AGP,Mr.N.J.Shah for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
Mr.Mithani,
learned counsel for the appellants, taking this Court through the
evidence of the appellants-original claimants as well as the
defendants, submitted that it is specifically claimed by the
claimants that at the time of acquisition, there were 11 mango trees
in their field which has also been admitted by the defendants’
witness, Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department. He also
took this Court through the joint measurement report produced at
Ex.90 before the trial court to substantiate his submission. As far
as other aspects are concerned, Mr.Mithani submitted that as per the
amendment in the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants are entitled to
get benefit as per Sec.23(1-A) and Sec.28 of the Act. He relied on
a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Atma Singh
(died) through L. Rs. and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr. reported
in AIR 2008 SC p.709.
Learned
AGP, Mr.N.J.Shah, for the State could not convince this Court as to
whether only one mango tree was standing in the field of the
claimants at the time of acquisition. He however submitted that
relying on the joint measurement report Ex.90, deposition of the
Deputy Executive Engineer was recorded and hence, the original
claimants could not prove the factum of existence of 11 mango trees.
There
is no substance in the said submission since nothing is coming out
from the judgment as to whether any objection has been raised by the
respondents about the joint measurement sheet Ex.90 which is
prepared by the Acquisition Officer in presence of the claimant
wherein signature of the claimant was also obtained. In the cross
examination of witness of the defendants also, it has been admitted
that there were 11 mango trees in the field of the claimants. Apart
from that, nothing is produced on record by the defendants to show
that said report is false or concocted by the plaintiffs. It seems
that the trial court granted compensation for only one mango tree
though it was duly established by the claimants that there were 11
mango trees existed at the time of acquisition of their lands.
In
view of the above, in the opinion of this Court, there is no reason
to deny the compensation for the additional trees existed in the
field of the claimants. It is however to be noted that the claimants
have claimed compensation for only 9 mango trees and hence, they
cannot be granted more than what has been claimed. Hence, the
claimants are entitled to compensation for additional 8 (eight)
mango trees. As far as quantum of compensation and other aspects are
concerned, the Reference Court, after discussing the evidence on
record, came to the conclusion and partly allowed the references and
awarded just and adequate compensation, which, in the opinion of
this Court, is not required to be interfered with.
Thus,
the appeal is partly allowed. The claimants are entitled to get
compensation for additional 8 (eight) mango trees @ Rs.8000/-
(Rupees Eight Thousand only) per mango tree together with the
benefit accrued to them under Secs.23(1A) and 28 of the Act. The
impugned judgment and award is modified to the aforesaid extent.
(M.D.SHAH,J.)
radhan
Top