Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA/890/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 890 of 2011 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE B.M.TRIVEDI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus JESANGJI SHIVAJI & 3 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS MOXA THAKKAR, AGP for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR YATIN SONI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. None for Defendant(s) : 3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3,3.2.4 - 4,4.2.1 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL and HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE B.M.TRIVEDI Date : 17/03/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
short facts of the case are that for the project of Patnagar Yojana
Vibhag-3, the acquisition of the land was made at village Pundrasan,
Taluka & District: Gandhinagar. The notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’)
was published on 21.06.1997. The notification under Section 6 of the
Act was published on 25.09.1997. The award under Section 11 of the
Act was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the
compensation was awarded at Rs. 11 per sq. mtr. As the compensation
was not satisfactory, the dispute was raised under Section 18 of the
Act which came to be referred to the Reference Court for
adjudication. The Reference Court, ultimately, awarded the
compensation at Rs. 312.40ps. per sq. mtr. plus the statutory benefit
of solatium, increase in the price under Section 23(1) of the Act and
the interest as per the statutory requirement. Under the
circumstances, the present appeal before us.
have heard Ms.Thakkar, learned A.G.P. for the appellant and Mr.
Chudasama with Mr. Soni appearing for the original claimants.
perusal of the impugned judgment of the Reference Court shows that
the Reference Court has based its decision in respect of the land
acquired at village Sargasan which is adjacent and nearby 10
kilometers but in the Taluka & District Gandhinagar, more
particularly, the view taken by this Court in respect of the
acquisition of the land of the said village Sargasan and the
compensation fixed in the said matter in the proceeding of First
Appeal No. 4069 of 2007 to 4072 of 2007 decided on 11.04.2008.
learned A.G.P. has not been able to show that there was any
distinguishing circumstance between the valuation of the land
assessed for village Sargasan and the land in question which is
located at village Pundrasan. We may record that in First Appeal No.
4069 of 2007 and allied matters decided on 11.04.2008, the valuation
was fixed at Rs. 231 per sq. mtr. as on May 20, 1993 as against the
price fixed by the Reference Court of Rs. 1750/- per sq. mtr. Since
the notification in the present case was of the year 1997 i.e. on
21.06.1997 and there was difference of four years, the Reference
Court has considered the appreciation at the rate of 10% per annum
from the price fixed of Rs. 231/- and based on the same, the price is
assessed at Rs. 323.40ps. per sq. mtr. and out of which Rs. 11/-
to be deducted since it was already awarded. Therefore, the net
amount of compensation is fixed at Rs. 312.40ps. per sq. mtr. The
other benefits awarded by the Reference Court are by way of statutory
the Reference Court has relied upon the decision of this Court for
the nearby village and has fixed the compensation, it cannot be said
that any error has been committed by the Reference Court which may
call for interference in the appellate jurisdiction. Hence, the
appeal is meritless and therefore dismissed.