Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/2295/2007 13/ 13 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2295 of 2007
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 2311 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
SPL.
LAND ACQ. OFFICER & 1 – Appellants
Versus
BHAILAL
DIPUBHAI -Respondents
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
SUNIT S SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER, for the appellants in First Appeal
Nos. 2295 to 2302 of 2007. MR JASWANT K.SHAH, A.G.P. for appellants
in First Appeal Nos. 2303 to 2311 of 2007.
MR
GM AMIN for the
respondent-claimants.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL
and
HON’BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 07/05/2007
ORAL
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL)
Admitted.
Mr.G.M.Amin, learned Counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of
the claimant/s in each appeal. Having regard to the facts of the
case, the appeals are taken up for final disposal today.
What
is challenged in these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 [“the Act” for short] read with
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is the legality of
common judgment and award dated March 31, 2006, rendered by the
learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (R) at
Navrangpura, in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 343 to 359 of 2002, by
which the claimants have been awarded additional amount of
compensation at the rate of Rs. 27.40 Ps. per sq.mt., for their
acquired lands, over and above the compensation offered to them at
the rate of Rs. 2.40 Ps. per sq.mt. by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer vide award dated December 22, 2000.
2. The
Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojna, Division No.8, Dholka proposed to
the State Government to acquire lands of village Rupgadh, Taluka :
Dholka, District : Ahmedabad for the public purpose of construction
of a canal under Narmada Project. On
perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that
the lands of village Rupgadh specified therein were likely to be
needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, a notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the
Official Gazette on August 28, 1998. Thereafter necessary inquiry as
contemplated by Section 5A of the Act was conducted. On completion of
inquiry, a report as contemplated by Section 5A(2) of the Act was
forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the State
Government. On consideration of the said report, the State Government
was satisfied that the lands of village Rupgadh, which were specified
in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act were
needed for the public purpose of construction of a canal under
Narmada Project. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act
was made, which was published in the Official Gazette on March 16,
1999. The interested persons were thereafter served with notices for
determination of compensation payable to them. Accordingly, the
claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and
claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq.mt. However,
having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer by his award dated December 22, 2000 offered
compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 2.40 Ps. per sq.mt.
The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation
made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was totally inadequate.
Therefore, they submitted applications under Section 18 of the Act
requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer their cases
to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of
compensation payable to them. Accordingly, references were made to
the District Court, Ahmedabad (R) at Navrangpura, where they were
numbered as Land Acquisition Case Nos.343 to 359 of 2002.
3. On
behalf of the claimants, witness Ranjitbhai Ravjibhai Parmar was
examined at Exh.27 in support of their claim for enhanced
compensation. The witness stated that the lands acquired were highly
fertile and that as they were irrigated and even, each claimant was
able to raise crops of cotton, cumin-seeds, juvar, til, paddy, wheat
etc. The witness mentioned that each claimant was able to earn net
profit of Rs. 40,000/- per Bigha per year from the sale of
agricultural produces. In order to support his claim that the lands
acquired were highly fertile, the witness produced 7/12 Extracts
relating to the lands acquired at Exhs.14 to 19. The witness stated
that boundaries of his village Rupgadh were touching the boundaries
of village Koth and that Narmada canal was coming from village Koth
to the sim of his village. The witness further explained that the
survey numbers of village Koth and the survey numbers acquired in the
instant case for the purpose of construction of a canal under the
Narmada Project were adjoining each other. The witness mentioned that
for the purpose of construction of canal under Narmada Project, lands
of village Koth were acquired, for which the Reference Court had
awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.29.80 ps. per sq.mt. and,
therefore, the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation on
the basis of the said previous award. The witness produced previous
award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village Koth at
Exh.24. The witness further asserted that the lands of village Koth,
which were acquired earlier for the public purpose of construction of
a canal under Narmada Project were similar in all respects to the
lands acquired in the instant case including fertility and that
similar crops were being raised on the lands of both the villages.
The witness stated that a Tar-road was available for the purpose of
approaching village Koth from his village and that village Koth was
situated at a distance of 1-1/2 KM away from his village.
This
witness was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the acquiring
authorities. However, nothing substantial could be elicited nor the
assertion made by the witness that the lands which were acquired
previously from village Koth were similar in all respects to the
lands acquired in the instant case could be demonstrated to be
untrue.
4. It
may be stated that on behalf of the acquiring authorities, no witness
was examined at all. On appreciation of evidence adduced by the
parties, the Reference Court concluded that the lands acquired in the
instant cases were irrigated lands. The Reference Court further
deduced that previous award of the Reference Court relating to the
lands of village Koth was a relevant piece of evidence for the
purpose of determining the market value of the lands acquired in the
instant cases. Placing reliance on the said previous award, the
Reference Court has awarded additional amount of compensation to the
claimants at the rate of Rs.27.40 ps.per sq.mt. by the impugned
award, giving rise to the above-numbered appeals.
5. This
Court has heard Mr.Jaswant K.Shah, learned Assistant Government
Pleader for the appellants, and Mr.G.M.Amin, learned Counsel for the
claimant/s in each appeal, at length and in great detail. This Court
has also considered the paper-book supplied by the learned Counsel
for the claimants, which includes oral as well as documentary
evidence adduced by the claimants before the Reference Court. It is
true that the witness for the claimants could not make good his
assertion that each claimant was earning RS.40,000/- per Bigha per
year from the sale of agricultural produces. However, the said fact
is of no importance, inasmuch as the claimants never claimed enhanced
compensation on yield basis, nor enhanced compensation was claimed by
the claimants on the basis of comparable sale instances. What was
relied upon by the claimants was previous award of the Reference
Court relating to the lands of village Koth, which was produced at
Exh.24. Exh.24 indicates that the lands of village Koth were acquired
for the public purpose of construction of a canal under Narmada
Project pursuant to publication of notification issued under Section
4(1) of the Act in the Official Gazette on April 23, 1998. Therein,
the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated June 14, 1999
had offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.1.90 ps.
per sq.mt. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants had sought references.
Accordingly, references were made to the District Court, Ahmedabad
(R) at Navrangpura, where they were numbered as Land Acquisition Case
Nos.159 to 171 of 2001. In those cases, on behalf of the claimants,
witness Lalubhai Jasmatsang was examined at Exh.31, whereas no
witness was examined on behalf of the acquiring authorities. Therein,
the claimants had relied upon the previous award of the Reference
Court relating to the lands of village Koth rendered in Land
Acquisition Case Nos.26 of 1987, which was produced at Exh.29, in
support of their claim for enhanced compensation. On appreciation of
evidence adduced by the claimants, the Reference Court awarded
additional amount of compensation to the claimants at the rate of
Rs.27.90 ps. per sq.mt. by judgment and award dated December 10,
2003. During the course of hearing of the appeals, the learned
Counsel for the claimants has produced simple copy of judgment dated
November 7, 2006 rendered by the Division Bench in First Appeal
No.3341 to 3353 of 2006, for perusal of the Court. It indicates that
the judgment and award dated December 10, 2003 rendered by the
learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge and Special Judge (LAR), Ahmedabad
(R) at Navrangpura, in Land Acquisition Case Nos.159 to 171 of 2001
was challenged before the High Court in the above-numbered appeals
and the appeals were dismissed by judgment dated November 7, 2006. It
is well settled that previous award of the Reference Court relating
to the lands of a village, which has attained finality, can be relied
upon as a good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining
market value of similar lands acquired subsequently from the
adjoining village. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the
opinion that the Reference Court did not commit any error in placing
reliance on the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the
lands of village Koth for the purpose of determining market value of
the lands acquired in the instant cases. The contention that in the
instant cases, lands acquired were not irrigated lands; whereas the
lands which were subject matter of the previous award of the
Reference Court relating to the lands of village Koth, were irrigated
lands and, therefore, the impugned award should be suitably modified,
has no substance. It may be mentioned that the witness for the
claimants had produced necessary documents at Exhs.16 to 20 to
indicate that the lands acquired were irrigated lands. This evidence
was not challenged by the acquiring authorities at all. Further,
Exh.35 is Schedule `A’ attached to the award of the Special Land
Acquisition Officer in Case No.16 of 1998. It indicates that the
acquired lands were irrigated lands. Therefore, the plea that the
lands acquired in the instant cases were not irrigated lands and,
therefore, the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the
lands of village Koth could not have been relied upon, has no
substance and is hereby rejected. On reappreciation of evidence
adduced by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that correct
findings of facts have been arrived at by the Reference Court on
appreciation of evidence adduced before it, to which well-settled
principles of law have been applied. The learned Assistant Government
Pleader could not persuade this Court to take a view different than
the one which is taken by the Reference Court on appreciation of
evidence adduced before it. Therefore, the appeals, which have no
merits, are liable to be dismissed.
For
the foregoing reasons, all the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
The
Registry is directed to draw decree in terms of this judgment
immediately.
[J.M.PANCHAL,J.]
[SMT.ABHILASHA
KUMARI,J.]
(patel)
Top