Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/298820/2005 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2988 of 2005
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 3000 of 2005
=========================================================
SPECIAL
LAQ OFFICER - Appellant(s)
Versus
MAHMAD
AASIF ALI BAGAS & 1 - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for
Appellant(s) : 1,
RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 30/09/2008
ORAL
ORDER
1. By
way of this group of appeals, the State has challenged the judgement
and award of the Civil Judge (S.D) (hereinafter referred as the
‘Reference Court’) passed on 31.03.2004 in Land Reference Case Nos.
1044 to 1056 of 1998 whereby the reference court awarded amount of
Rs. 52/- for the acquired land.
2. The
facts of the case are that the lands of original claimants situated
in the village Ikhar, Ta. Amod, District : Bharuch were acquired for
the purpose of construction of Narmada Canal Project. The
notifications u/s 4 and 6 were published on 06.09.1995 and 05.08.1996
respectively. Thereafter, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
declared his award on 10.10.1997 whereby he awarded Rs. 4.60 per sq.
mtr as against the claim of the claimants.
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 Reference Court. The reference court
passed the aforesaid award. Hence the present appeals.
3. 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. Learned AGP has further submitted that
the reference court has determined the market value of the land in
question for the whole area which is acquired. Learned AGP has
submitted that the reference court ought to have seen that the whole
area is not being cultivated and the market value ought to have been
taken into consideration of the area which was being cultivated.
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 various exhibits more particularly Ex. 14 to 49, 124 &
125 produced by the parties and after considering the evidence in
detail passed the aforesaid award. This Court is in complete
agreement with the reasonings and method adopted and findings arrived
at by the reference court.
5. Moreover,
this appeal is also covered by a decision of this Court wherein the
awards passed in reference cases of the adjoining village and same
Taluka have been challenged. This Court has upheld the method
adopted by the reference court in the land reference case nos. 2549
to 2557 of 1997 and dismissed the said group of appeals being appeals
no. 4098 to 4104 of 2007 vide order dated 02.09.2008. In that view
of the matter also, since the present group of appeals are covered by
the said decision rendered in First Appeals no. 4098 to 4104 of 2007,
this group of appeals are required to be dismissed.
6. In
the premises aforesaid, first appeals are dismissed. No order as
to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.)
Divya//
Top