Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/1166/1987 4/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1166 of 1987
FIRST
APPEAL No. 1166 of 1987
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
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 GUJARAT - Appellant(s)
Versus
VIJAYKUNVERBA
MAHENDRASINHJI - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MS
MANISHA NARSINGHANI, AGP for Appellant(s) : 1,
MS ARCHANA ACHARYA
FOR MR SB VAKIL for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: /07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
This
appeal by the State of Gujarat-original opponent is filed against
the judgment and award dated 26-4-1985 passed by the learned
Assistant Judge, Rajkot at Morvi, in Land Acquisition Case No.9 of
1979 whereby the reference was partly allowed granting additional
compensation @ Rs.2/- per sq.mtr. for all the lands over and above
the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and
Rs.2,10,000/- as compensation for superstructures with solatium @
30% on the additional amount as well as interest @ 9% p.a. on the
additional amount from the date of acquiring body taking over
possession of the lands.
The
lands of the claimant along with superstructures were acquired by
the State Government under a notification under Sec.4 of the
Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’) on
11-10-1974. Thereafter, a notification under Sec.6 was issued on
2-6-1976 which was published in the Govt. gazette on 1-7-1976. The
Land Acquisition Officer, taking into consideration situation of the
lands under acquisition, sale instances of Village Trajpar from the
records of Morvi Municipality and the reports of valuers fixed the
market value of the lands, awarded compensation. Being dissatisfied
with the same, the claimant moved reference and the Reference Court
passed the impugned award as mentioned in the earlier part of this
judgment, giving rise to the present appeal by the State.
Heard
learned AGP, Ms.Manisha Narsinghani, for the appellant-State and
learned counsel, Ms.Archana Acharya for Mr.S.B.Vakil for the
respondent.
It
is submitted by learned AGP, Ms.Manisha Narsinghani, that the
judgment and award of the Court below is contrary to law and
evidence on record. It is further submitted that amounts of
compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on the
acquired lands and Rs.2,10,000/- on the superstructures are
substantially high.
It
is submitted by learned counsel, Ms.Archana Acharya for Mr.S.B.Vakil
for the respondent-claimant that the lands of the claimant with
superstructures situated in Morvi Municipality bearing Census
No.34-A, 48-B and 62-C were acquired by the State Government by
notification under Sec.4 on 11-10-1974. The Land Acquisition
Officer, taking into account the situation of the lands under
acquisition and comparable sale instances of various nearby Villages
and also the report of the valuers, fixed the market price of the
lands. Hence, the amounts of compensation awarded on the lands and
on the superstructures cannot be said to be excessive. It is
therefore urged that the appeal be dismissed.
This
Court has gone through the award of the Land Acquisition Officer as
well as the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court. It is not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Officer has
considered the report of the experts who fixed the market price
keeping in mind the sale instances of various surrounding lands. It
is also not in dispute that the lands under acquisition were
non-agricultural lands having good quality and building
potentiality. As regards the contention of learned AGP that the
amount awarded on the superstructures is very high, it may be noted
that said amount fixed by trial court was agreed upon by the learned
Government Pleader appearing at the trial court and now it would not
lie in the mouth of learned AGP to challenge the same. Thus, the
amounts awarded by the court below have been after taking into
consideration the entire material evidence available on record
including the evidence of experts and the comparable sale instances
and there is no infirmity in the findings arrived at by the
reference Court and hence, they are not required to be interfered
with by this Court in this appeal. Moreover, the learned AGP for the
State failed to point out any such reason or material on the basis
of which a different view than the one taken by the reference Court
can be taken by this Court. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(M.D.SHAH,J.)
radhan/
Top