Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1435/2001 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1435 of 2001
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1439 of 2001
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 ?
=========================================================
SPECIAL
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER NO. 1 & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
MALJIBHAI
LILABHAI DESAI - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
NEERAJ SONI, ASST GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for
Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 23/11/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated
05/10/1999 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana in LAR
Nos.1115 to 1119 of 1993, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
2. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader has mainly submitted that learned Judge
while awarding the amount of compensation has not made any discussion
about the date of Notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Act. The
learned Judge ought to have considered the recent sale instances than
considering a decade old judgment. It is submitted that in the past
case the land was acquired in the year 1981 whereas in the present
case the land was acquired in the year 1990. It is further submitted
that no discussion and observation about difference / similarity of
nature of land acquired in the present case was made. It is therefore
submitted that appeal may be allowed and judgment and award of the
learned Judge may be quashed and set aside.
3. Having
heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader and having gone
through the impugned judgment and award, more particularly, paragraph
Nos.15, 16 and 17, it cannot be said that the learned Judge has
passed the judgment and award keeping in mind the similar nature of
land. The learned Judge has passed the award keeping in mind the
earlier reference which was not of the similar village. As the
previously acquired lands were situated towards eastern side and the
present acquired lands are situated on the northern side, it can be
said that directions of previously and presently acquired lands are
totally opposite from each other and presently acquired lands are
totally opposite from each other. This Court is in complete
agreement with the conclusions arrived at and finding recorded by the
learned Judge and the amount awarded by the learned Judge is just and
proper and need not require to be interfered with. The appeals must
fail and are accordingly dismissed.
(K
S JHAVERI, J.)
sompura
Top