Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1354/2010 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1354 of 2010
=========================================================
OIL
& NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. - Appellant(s)
Versus
AIYUB
ASHMAL ABHARAM & 2 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
M/S
TRIVEDI & GUPTA for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Defendant(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA
Date
: 23/08/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
The
present appeal arises against the judgement and the award dated
07.05.1999 passed by the Reference Court in the concerned Land
Reference case, whereby the additional compensation has been awarded
at the rate of Rs.22/- per square metre on the basis of the
assessment of the market value at Rs.25/- per square metre.
The
learned counsel for the appellant Mr.Uday Joshi states that as such,
the Reference Court had passed common judgement and award in various
land reference cases arising for the same acquisition and in all
cases, the additional compensation was awarded at Rs.22/- per square
metre with the statutory benefit of solatium and the interest. He
submitted that in respect of other reference cases, the matters were
carried before this Court in First Appeal No.5363/99 and vide its
decision dated 23.11.2000, the appeals were dismissed by confirming
the assessment of the market value made by the Reference Court.
He submitted that the present matter is one of the left out matter
of the said group.
It
may be recorded that this Court vide its decision dated 23.11.2000
in First Appeal No.5363/99 to 5374/99 had observed at paras 2 to 7
as under:
“2. The
lands in question in the present group of Appeals were acquired
by the acquiring body for the purpose of Central Processing
Facility – Gandhar and the relevant Notification under
Section 4 was issued on 1st November, 1990. The lands acquired
are from the village Roza Tankaria.
3. As a result of the hearing and discussion, we find that this very Bench has decided First Appeal Nos. 3052 to 3063 of 2000 and 3064 to 3076 of 2000 by its judgment and order dated 22nd November, 2000, wherein the lands acquired were for the very same purpose and from the very same village namely, Roza Tankaria. The time difference between the relevant Notification under Section 4 is insignificant.
4. In the premises aforesaid, the learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any special factors as to why the market value determined under the impugned judgment and awards requires to be reduced any further, in relation to the market value determined by us in the aforesaid group of Appeals.
4.1 In the aforesaid group of Appeals, we had confirmed the judgment and awards of the Reference Court determining the market value at Rs.25/- per square metre. Even in the instant case, the Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired lands at the same figure namely, Rs.25/- per square metre.
5. In the premises aforesaid, we are satisfied that no deviation from this figure is justified.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to point out any special facts, on the basis of which any further reduction would be justified.
7. in the premises aforesaid, for the reasons stated in the aforesaid decision, the market value determined by the Reference Court in the instant group of Appeals stands confirmed as also the impugned judgment and awards. There is, therefore, no substance in the present group of Appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.”
The
learned counsel even in the present case is not in a position to
show any distinguishing circumstance and on the contrary, he has
fairly conceded that the matter is covered by the above referred
decision of this Court.
It
further appears that in the said case, the assessment of the market
value at Rs.25/- per square metre was confirmed. The same is the
fact situation in the present case inasmuch as after assessing the
market value at Rs.25/- since compensation at Rs.3/- per square
metre was already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in
the Award, the additional compensation of Rs.22/- per square metre
awarded by the Reference Court does not deserve to be interfered
with. As regards other amount is concerned, the same pertains to
the statutory benefit of solatium and interest.
In
view of the above, as the appeal is devoid of any merit, the same
is dismissed.
(JAYANT
PATEL, J.)
(BANKIM
N. MEHTA, J.)
*bjoy
Top