Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/923/1994 5/ 9 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 923 of 1994
With
FIRST
APPEAL No. 925 of 1994
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 ?
=========================================================
REVABEN
WD/O MANIBHAI HARIBHAI - Appellant(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
GM AMIN for
Appellant(s) : 1, 1.2.1,1.2.2
MR APURVA DAVE, AGP for
Defendant(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 15/09/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of filing these appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, the appellants have prayed that the learned Judge ought to
have awarded Rs.1,000/- per Are for non-irrigated lands and
Rs.1,500/- per Are for irrigated lands by common judgment and
award dated September 11, 1990 rendered by the learned Assistant
Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Land Acquisition Reference
Case Nos.456/87 to 475/87 and Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.690
to 694 of 1987. We may state that as the claimants had
proposed to lead common evidence, all the reference cases were
consolidated with Land Acquisition Reference Case No.456/87, which
was treated as the main case and the parties had led common
evidence therein. As common questions of fact and law are
involved in these appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this
common judgment.
2. The
Executive Engineer, Survey and Construction, Western Railway,
Ahmedabad had proposed to acquire agricultural lands of village
Dhansura, Taluka : Modasa, District : Sabarkantha for public
purpose of railway. On scrutiny of the said proposal, State
Government was satisfied that agricultural lands of village
Dhansura were likely to be needed for the said public purpose.
Therefore, notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) was issued which was
published in Government Gazette on May 17, 1980. The owners
whose lands were proposed to be acquired were served with
notices and they had filed their objections against the proposed
acquisition. After considering their objections, Land Acquisition
Officer had forwarded his report to the State Government as
contemplated by section 5A(2) of the Act. On
consideration of the said report, State Government was satisfied
that agricultural lands of village Dhansura specified in the
notification published under section 4(1) of the Act were
needed for public purpose of railway. Therefore, declaration
under section 6 of the Act was made which was published in
Government Gazette on November 14, 1980. The interested persons
were thereafter served with notices for determination of
compensation. The claimants appeared before the Land Acquisition
Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per
Are. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the
Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated March 31, 1982 offered
compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 140/- per Are
for irrigated lands and Rs. 100/- per Are for non-irrigated lands.
The claimants were of the view that the offer of compensation made
by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Therefore, they
made applications in writing requiring the Land Acquisition
Officer to refer the matter to the Court for determination of
appropriate compensation. Accordingly, references were made to the
District Court, Sabarkantha, which were numbered as Land Acquisition
Reference Case Nos. 456 to 475 of 1987 and Land Acquistion
Reference Case Nos.690 to 694 of 1987. In the reference
applications, it was averred by the claimants that the lands
acquired were highly fertile and as the claimants were deriving
substantial income from the sale of agricultural produces, they
should be awarded higher compensation. The claimants also pleaded
that there was an overall development quite near the acquired lands
and, therefore, they should be awarded compensation at the rate of
Rs.1000/- per Are. The Executive Engineer, Western Railway,
Ahmedabad filed written statement at Exh.9 and controverted the
averments made in the reference applications. In the said reply, it
was stated that after taking into consideration the situation of the
lands acquired, development which had taken place in nearby areas,
income derived from sale of agricultural produces etc., Land
Acquisition Officer had determined compensation and as the
compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer was just
and adequate, reference applications should be dismissed. On behalf
of the State Government, a purshis at Exh.10 was submitted by which
reply filed by the Executive Engineer, Western Railway, Ahmedabad
was adopted. Upon rival assertions of the parties, necessary
issues for determination were raised by the Reference Court at
Exh.14. In support of the claim advanced in reference applications,
the claimants examined witnesses (1) Shakarabhai Makanabhai at
Exh.20 and (2) Chimanbhai Bababhai Patel at Exh.48. On behalf of
the acquiring authorities, witness Govindbhai Somabhai Patel was
examined at Exh.57. The claimants produced sale index at Exh.58.
Witness Shakarabhai Makanabhai produced sale deed at Exh.49,
which indicated that non-agricultural land admeasuring 37 gunthas
was sold at the price of Rs. 1324/- by deed dated January 24,
1977. On behalf of the claimants, previous award of the
Reference Court rendered in Land Reference Cases No.471/84 to
494/84 was produced at Exh.78, which indicated that market
value of agricultural lands of village Rahiyol was assessed at Rs.
262/- per Are as on February 25, 1980 which was the date of
publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act.
Another award rendered in Land Reference Cases No.117/86 to
142/86 was produced at Exh.74 wherein market value of the lands of
village Bayad was determined to be Rs.750/- per Are as on January
24, 1980, which was the date of publication of notification
under section 4(1) of the Act. The witness examined on behalf of
the claimants had also given particulars as to what was the
quantity of crops of ground-nut, maize, raida, millet etc. raised on
the lands acquired as well as their prices at the relevant
time. On appreciation of evidence led by the parties, the Reference
Court deduced that on the basis of sale indexes, the market value
of the lands acquired should be assessed at the rate of Rs.
500/- per Are for irrigated lands and Rs. 350/- per Are for
non-irrigated lands. The Reference Court also took into
consideration different crops which were being raised on the
acquired lands and after taking into consideration their
respective prices, held that even on yield basis, the claimants
were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per Are for
irrigated lands and Rs.350/- per Are for non-irrigated lands, by the
impugned common award dated September 11, 1990, which has given rise
to present appeals.
3. Mr.
G.M.Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that while
determining market value of the acquired lands with reference
to sale deed Exh.49, Reference Court was not justified in making
deduction to the extent of 33% from the price indicated by the
said deed on the ground that the extent of land sold by Exh.49 was
small in comparison to the extent of lands acquired in the present
case and, therefore, the claimants should be awarded higher
compensation on the basis of the said document; whereas Mr.Apurva
Dave, learned A.G.P. submitted that the Reference Court was
justified in making deductions as indicated in para-10 of the
impugned award and, therefore, additional compensation as claimed by
the appellants should not be awarded to them.
4. We
have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have
also taken into consideration the oral as well as documentary
evidence produced by the parties on the record of the case. In
Special Land Acquisition Officer, Devangere vs. P.Veerabhadar Appa,
AIR 1984 SC 774, it is ruled that yield method can be resorted to
only when no other method to ascertain market value of the lands
acquired is available. In view of the above statement of law made
by the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the Reference
Court was not justified in determining market value of the lands
acquired in the present case on yield basis. The claimants had
produced sale instances to enable the Court to determine market
value of the acquired lands. Under the circumstances, evidence
led by the claimants regarding profits derived by them from sale
of agricultural produces raised on the acquired lands will have
to be ignored from consideration. Though the claimants had
sought to rely on previous awards of the Reference Court, the
learned Judge was justified in not placing reliance on them, as
they were not comparable at all. We agree with the reasons
given by the learned Judge in Paras 11 & 12 of the impugned
common award and we hold that those previous awards cannot be taken
into consideration for determining market value of the lands acquired
in the present case, as they are not comparable. In view of
the above conclusions, the only evidence available to the Court is
in the form of sale deed produced by the claimants. Witness
Shakarabhai Makanabhai examined at Exh.20 has stated that
Chimanbhai Bababhai Patel who was owner of survey No.473/A/1/1 of
village Dhansura, had sold the same to Gayatri Rural
Co.operative Society by a deed dated January 24, 1997 for a
consideration of Rs.49,001/-. Chimanbhai Bababhai patel whose
evidence was recorded at Exh.48, has produced the said sale deed
at Exh.49. In view of the deposition of owner who had sold the land
to the Society, there is no manner of doubt that sale deed is proved
as required by law and can be taken into consideration for the
purpose of determining the market value of the lands acquired in this
case. The Reference Court deducted 33% from the value of the lands
indicated in Exh.49 on the ground that the land sold was small in
comparison to the extent of lands acquired. In our view, by deed
Exh.49, land admeasuring 37 gunthas was sold and, therefore, this
cannot be said to be a sale instance relating to a very small
piece of land. Therefore, in our view, the Reference Court was
not justified in deducting 33% from the value of the lands as
indicated in Exh.49. However, there is no manner of doubt that by
Exh.49, non-agricultural lands were sold and, therefore, appropriate
deduction will have to be made from the prices as indicated in
Exh.49 while determining market value of the lands acquired.
The evidence of two witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants
shows that village Dhansura is situated at Nadiad- Kapadwanj
Highway and is well developed. In the village, there are two
government gins, two oil mills, theater, primary schools, women
college, Industrial Training Institute, 7 centres of Sabar
Dairy etc. Therefore, the fact that lands acquired have potentiality
for use as non-agricultural lands, can hardly be doubted. However,
having regard to the location of the lands acquired and the fact
that non-agricultural lands were sold by Exh.49, we are of the
opinion that interest of justice would be served if 40% is deducted
from the value of the lands as indicated in Exh.49 for the purpose
of determining market value of the lands acquired in the present
case. Making deduction as mentioned above, we hold that the
price of irrigated lands acquired in the present case would come to
Rs.7.75 ps. per sq.mt. which is rounded off to Rs.8/- per sq.mt.
and the market value of the non-agricultural lands acquired in
the present case would be Rs.6/- per sq.mt. in view of the formula
laid down by the Supreme Court in Kantaben Manibhai Amin and
another vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda, AIR 1990 SC
103. Thus, we hold that the claimants are entitled to compensation
at the rate of Rs. 800/- per Are for irrigated lands and Rs. 600/-
per Are for non-irrigated lands.
5. For
the foregoing reasons, all the appeals are partly allowed. It
is held that the claimants are entitled to receive compensation
at the rate of Rs.800/- per Are for agricultural lands and
Rs.600/- per Are for non-agricultural lands. Rest of the directions
given in the impugned award are hereby upheld. There shall be no
orders as to costs. Office is directed to draw decree in terms of
this judgment.
(K.S.JHAVERI,
J.)
(ila)
Top