Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2475/2011 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2475 of 2011
TO
FIRST
APPEAL NO. 2485 OF 2011
=========================================================
SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 2 - Appellant(s)
Versus
AHMED
VALI MAHMAD - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
JANAK RAVAL, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 3.
None for Defendant(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 25/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgement
and award dated 29.01.2010 passed by the Court of 4th
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Reference Cases No.
554 to 563 of 2006 and 151 & 152 of 2006 whereby the trial court
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 53/- per sq. mts.
2. The
land of the original claimants situated in the sim of Village Keshvan
Bharuch was acquired for the public purpose of construction of
Trankal Vishakha Canal under the Narmada Project. The notifications
under section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were
published on 16.04.2004 and 23.08.2004 respectively. After following
due procedure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award
dated 14.09.2005 awarded compensation for the acquired land at the
rate of Rs. 4.47 per sq. mts for the acquired land.
2.1 Being
aggrieved by the said award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
the original applicant filed reference under section 18 of the Land
Acquisition Act before the Court of 4th Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Bharuch praying compensation at the rate of Rs. 75 per
sq. mt. The reference court passed the aforesaid award. Hence the
present appeals.
3. Mr.
Raval, learned AGP appearing for the State has submitted that the
reference court ought to have seen that the claimant has failed to
prove that the compensation awarded by the special land acquisition
officer is inadequate and not proper. He has submitted that the
reference court ought to have appreciated that when the claimants
failed to prove that the lands under reference and under previous
award are not similar, the learned Judge ought not to have placed
much reliance upon the previous award of another land but ought to
have placed reliance upon the comparable sale instances which were
taken into consideration and are available on record.
4. This
court has gone through the documentary evidence placed on record
alongwith the award of the reference court. The reference court has
relied upon Ex. 24 which is the previous award declared in Land
Reference Case No. 1470/90 qua village Muler. The reference court
after considering the evidence in detail came to the conclusion that
in the case of village Ochhan which is an adjoining village the
section 4 notification was issued only three months before the date
of issuance of section 4 notification in the present case. The
reference court also observed that the award passed qua village Muler
was confirmed by this court which is also an adjoining village and
therefore relying upon both the villages the reference court granted
Rs. 53/- per square meter for the acquired land. I am in complete
agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the
reference court and therefore do not see any reason for causing
interference in the matters. These appeals are therefore required to
be dismissed.
6. In
the premises aforesaid, first appeals are dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top