Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1732/2008 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1732 of 2008
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1738 of 2008
with
Civil
Application No. 4266 to 4272 of 2008
=========================================================
KISHORPURI
KARSHANPURI - Appellant(s)
Versus
RELIANCE
INDUSTRIES & 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
NIRAV C THAKKAR for
Appellant(s) : 1,
NANAVATI ASSOCIATES for Defendant(s) :
1,
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Defendant(s) : 2 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 27/08/2008
ORAL
ORDER1. The
Appellant- original plaintiff has challenged the judgment and order
dated 31-1-2007, passed by the 7th Additional Sr. Civil
Judge, Jamnagar in Spl. Civil Suit No. 108 of 2004 whereby the plaint
was dismissed under Order 7 Rule 11(D).
2. The
fact of the case is that the appellant,residing of village Sikkka
District Jamnagar holding agricultural land being Revenue Survey
No.153.The acquisition proceeding for the state machinery, was
initiated by the the Government under the Land Acquisition Act
1984, at the instance of the respondent no.1. For determining the
compensation the LAQ Case No. 5 of 1993, was initiated and award
was passed, but the appellant was not satisfied with the awarded
amount. An agreement was executed between the appellant and
the Respondent No.1 dated 19.5.1995 for payment of higher amount of
compensation than the award in LAQ Case No. 5 of 1993. The award
amount was enhanced in appeal, the respondent no.1 would have to
pay 6% of the award amount to the State Government towards
administrative charges, to avoid making such a payments, the
officers of the respondent no.1, executed the aforesaid
agreement to prevent higher payment being made to the State
Government. Therefore the suit in question came to be filed which
come to be dismissed.
3. Learned
Advocate for the appellant submitted that the trial court has
committed an error in allowing the application and rejecting
the plaint of the appellant.
4. On
going to the record it evident that the trial court found that
award of less compensation of a land in LAQ Case is not illegal
land acquisition. I am therefore of the view that a decision of the
trial court is just and proper,more particularly prayers of
suit challenging proceedings under Land Acquisition Act 1894.
5. However
the counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the list
produced by the plaintiff, the payment is not made as per
the agreement between the parties, Mark -3/8 dated 19th
May 1995. It is made clear that the suit was rightly rejected since
no prayer can be granted in view of the decision of the Apex court .
6. However,
if suit for the nonpayment of the amount as per the agreement is
filed, the same will be considered on merit without
being influenced by the fact that earlier suit has been rejected by
the competent court.
7. In
that view of the above mention facts, this appeal is not entertained
and it stands disposed of. In view of the dismissal of
the petition,the civil Applications stand disposed of.
(K.S.Jhaveri,J)
*Himanshu
  Â
Top