Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/693/2009 10/ 10 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 693 of 2009
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 698 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
STATE
OF cGUJARAT THROUGH DEPUTY COLLECTOR & & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
AHER
JAGMAL LAKHMAN JODWA - Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MS
SHACHI MATHUR, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER
for Appellant(s) : 1 -
2.
MR VIMAL M PATEL for Defendant(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 19/04/2011
COMMON
ORAL JUDGMENT
The
challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment and award dated
12.10.2007 rendered by the learned Sr.Civil Judge, Veraval in LAR
Case Nos.6 to 11 of 2005 whereby the reference Court awarded
additional amount of compensation to the respondents –
claimants @ Rs.1591/- per RA for Piyat land, and so far as LAR Case
Nos.7 and 8 of 2005 are concerned, the reference Court awarded
compensation at the additional rate of Rs.1966/- per RA.
Furthermore, so far as the land reference case Nos.6,9,10 and 11 of
2005 were concerned, the additional amount of compensation was
granted on the basis of the yield of various fruits, namely,
coconut, badam, gunda etc. and along with judgment and award, two
schedules came to be attached, namely, Schedule ‘A’ and Schedule
‘B’, and it transpires that so far as the land reference case
Nos.6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 are concerned, the amount of compensation
came to be paid only on the basis of standing fruit bearing trees
and annual production thereof, and so far as LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005
are concerned, the reference Court awarded compensation to the
claimants of these two land reference cases at the additional rate
of Rs.1966/- per RA. The State of Gujarat and the Executive
Engineer, who were opponents in the reference cases, felt that the
amount of compensation awarded to the claimants was exorbitant and
on higher side and, therefore, challenged the impugned judgment and
award in these appeals.
Certain
agricultural lands belonging to the respondents claimants situated
in the outskirts of village Kukaswada, Taluka Malia Hatina, District
Junagadh, detailed in paragraph 2 in the judgment and award,
proposed to be acquired for the common public purpose of Canal
connecting two rivers, namely, Noli and Meghal. The notification
u/s.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (‘the Act’, for short) came to be
published on dated 5.11.1998 and the notification u/s.6 of the Act
was published on dated 2.2.1999. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer conducted inquiry in LAQ No.33 of 1998 to determine the just
and sufficient amount of compensation and declared his award u/s.11
of the Act on dated 20.04.2001 and offered compensation @ Rs.1100/-
per RA for irrigated land and Rs.725/- per RA for non-irrigated
land. The claimants felt that the amount offered to them by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer was highly inadequate and
insufficient and, therefore, they applied for references, and their
references were numbered and registered as LAR Case Nos.6 to 11 of
2005 wherein they claimed compensation @ Rs.10000/- per RA.
Since
all those land reference cases arose out of common award passed by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s.11 of the Act, the
reference Court consolidated all those reference Cases and common
evidence was recorded. On behalf of the claimants, claimants in land
reference case No.6 of 2005, namely, Jagmalbhai Laxmanbhai and
claimant in land reference case No.7 of 2005, namely, Pradumansinh
Lalubha came to be examined. The claimant examined witness Ganga
Parbatbhai at Exh.22. No more witnesses were examined by the
claimants. On behalf of the opponent, the evidence of Lalabhai
Kuberbhai was recorded. Both the parties produced necessary
documentary evidence. After appreciating and evaluating the oral and
documentary evidence on record and considering the submissions
advanced on behalf of both the sides, the reference Court came to
the conclusion that the amount offered to the claimants by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer was highly inadequate and
insufficient and, therefore, so far as the land reference case Nos.7
and 8 of 2005 are concerned, the reference Court awarded
compensation to the respondents – claimants at the additional
rate of Rs.1966/- per RA and so far as the rest of the land
reference cases, namely, LAR case Nos.6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 are
concerned, as per Schedule ‘A’, the reference Court awarded
compensation on the basis of annual production of various fruits,
considering average production and the price of various fruits,
namely, coconut, badam etc. This has given rise to the instant
appeals.
Ms.Shachi
Mathur, ld.AGP for the appellants – original respondents
submitted that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the
reference Court is contrary to law and facts on record. It is
submitted that the reference Court in connection with two reference
cases, namely, the LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005, determined the amount of
compensation, relying upon earlier sale-deed, Exh.24 and came to the
conclusion that the claimants of these two land reference cases were
entitled to recover additional amount of compensation @ Rs.1966/-
per RA. It is submitted that so far as the remaining four land
reference cases were concerned, the reference Court awarded
compensation on the basis of the production of fruits, namely,
coconut, badam etc. and by adopting yield method, the reference
Court awarded compensation. Ms.Mathur, ld.AGP for the appellants
submitted that the reference Court adopted faulty method in
determining the just and fair amount of compensation. In the
impugned judgment and award, at one place, the reference Court
observed that the claimants were entitled for additional
compensation of Rs.1000/- towards non-fruit tree, but if Schedule
‘A’ is considered, nowhere it appears that the said formula was
adopted while determining the amount of compensation. It is further
submitted that except the oral evidence of the claimants, there is
no cogent and convincing evidence regarding the production of
various fruits and the market price thereof prevalent at the time of
the acquisition of the lands. It is, therefore, submitted that the
impugned judgment and award is based on presumptions and
assumptions. Ms.Mathur, ld.AGP for the appellants ultimately
submitted that the appeals may be allowed and the impugned common
judgment and award rendered by the reference Court be set-aside.
Per
contra, Mr.Vimal Patel, ld.advocate for the respondents –
original claimants supported the impugned judgment and award
rendered by the reference Court and stated that the reference Court
has adopted correct method while determining the amount of
compensation. It is submitted that the reference Court rightly
arrived at the conclusion on the basis of evidence on record. That
except LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005, in the remaining four cases, there
were fruit bearing trees and for those four cases, the reference
Court rightly adopted the yield method. It is submitted that qua
those four reference cases, the reference Court did not grant the
compensation at any fixed rate per RA or per square meter. Mr.Patel,
ld.advocate drew my attention to Form ‘D’ attached to the award
passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s.11 of the Act
and submitted that even qua these four land reference cases, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on the basis
of the standing fruit plantations in the lands and the value of the
yield, and on the same basis, in the impugned judgment and award,
the reference Court awarded the compensation. However, the reference
Court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the
amount awarded qua these four land reference cases by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer was quite meagre and insufficient and the
reference Court was perfectly justified in determining the fair and
reasonable amount of compensation. Mr.Patel, ld.advocate for the
respondents – claimants, therefore, submitted that no ground
is made out by the appellants to interfere with the impugned
judgment and award rendered by the reference Court and all these
appeals may be dismissed.
I
have examined the record and proceedings in context with the
submissions advanced by the rival sides.
Examining
the record and proceedings of the case, as well as considering the
impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court, it
seems that so far as LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005 are concerned, the
reference Court while determining the just and fair amount of
compensation relied upon the comparable sale instance, Exh.24 and
the evidence of buyer Ganga Parbatbhai recorded at Exh.22. It
transpires that the comparable sale instance, Exh.24 pertains to the
land situated in the outskirts of village Kukaswada itself whereby
by executing the registered sale-deed dated 15.4.1994 Ganga
Prabhatbhai, who came to be examined at Exh.22, purchased the land,
admeasuring 97 acres at the consideration of Rs.1,80,000/- and the
reference Court in paragraph 12 in the impugned judgment observed
that the consideration price per RA would be Rs.1856/-. It is
pertinent to note that the said sale instance is dated 15.4.1994,
whereas in the instant case, the notification u/s.4 of the Act came
to be published on dated 5.11.1998, meaning thereby there was time
gap of four years and five months. The reference Court, therefore,
considering the earlier decisions of this Court, observed that the
appreciation in value of land @ 10% p.a. is required to be
considered and, accordingly, the reference Court observed that 45%
increase is required to be given and, accordingly, the reference
Court came to the conclusion that Rs.835/- per RA are required to be
added in Rs.1856/- per RA. The claimants of LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005
are entitled to claim just and fair amount of compensation @
Rs.2691/- per RA, but the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered
compensation to those claimants @ Rs.725/- per RA for non-irrigated
land and, therefore, deducting Rs.725/- per RA from Rs.2691/- per
RA, the claimants of LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005 were entitled to claim
additional amount of compensation @ Rs.1966/- per RA. It is further
pertinent to note that to substantiate the sale instance, Exh.24,
the claimants examined buyer Ganga Parbatbhai as their witness and
considering his evidence, recorded at Exh.22, it clearly transpires
that the sale was free sale, without any element of compulsion,
either on the part of the buyer or on the part of the vendor.
Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the reference Court
did not commit any error in relying upon the earlier sale instance
of the same village while fixing just and reasonable amount of
compensation regarding the lands of the claimants of LAR Nos.7 and 8
of 2005. Perusing the evidence of Ganga Parbatbhai, it further
transpires that the acquired lands are situated just nearby the land
comprised under the sale instance.
The
reference Court, thereafter, took into consideration an admitted
fact that so far as the claimants of LAR Nos.6,9,10 and 11 were
concerned, in their acquired lands, there were standing fruit
plantations and in support thereof, the reference Court relied upon
the evidence of Ranmal Kachrabhai examined at Exh.17, and through
his evidence, the fertility and potentiality of the lands situated
in this area as well as the types of different fruit plantations
used to be cultivated in this area and their yields etc. together
with the price of various fruits prevalent at the relevant time has
come on record. Over and above this, there is evidence of witness
Bhagwanjibhai Ramjibhai, examined at Exh.18, who at the relevant
time was serving as Secretary in Agricultural Market Committee,
Junagadh. He produced extracts of relevant register at Exh.52. The
claimant of LAR No.6 of 2005, namely, Jagmal Laxmanbhai came to be
examined at Exh.21 and considering paragraphs 5 and 6 in his
evidence, it clearly transpires that in the acquired lands (except
LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005) there were tree plantations, namely,
coconut, gunda, badam etc. Perusing his deposition, the evidence has
come on record about the yield of different fruits in various fruit
trees and the relevant price of the fruits thereof. He was
succinctly cross-examined on behalf of the opponent, but nothing
reveals, which would make his evidence either doubtful or improper.
Moreover, if the statement Form ‘D’ attached to the award passed by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s.11 of the Act is
considered, together with Schedule ‘A’ attached to the impugned
judgment and award rendered by the reference Court, it clearly
transpires that the number of fruit trees mentioned in both these
statements tally with each other. On the basis of the oral and
documentary evidence on record, in the impugned judgment and award
the reference Court came to the conclusion that the amount offered
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by way of compensation to
the claimants of LAR Case Nos.6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 was highly
inadequate and meagre. As stated above, considering the evidence of
the claimants examined before the reference Court, so also the
evidence of the witnesses, sufficient evidence has come on record
about the yield of different types of fruits and the price thereof
prevalent at the time of the acquisition of the land. In paragraph
13 in the impugned judgment and award, the reference Court has
examined this aspect of the matter elaborately. The reference Court
took into consideration the earlier decisions of this Court and of
Hon’ble the Apex Court and, ultimately, came to the conclusion that
the claimants of those four land reference cases were entitled to
claim reasonable amount of compensation as narrated in Schedule ‘A’
attached to the impugned judgment and award.
In
light of the entire above discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that there is no sufficient ground or reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court. These
appeals are, therefore, devoid of any merits and deserve dismissal.
For
the foregoing reasons, these appeals are dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. Registry to send back the R & P of the
land reference cases to the reference Court forthwith.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA,
J.)
(binoy)
Top