FA/879/2008 6/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 879 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD ====================================== 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 ACQ. OFFICER & ANOTHER Versus KUKABHAI HIPABHAI & OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : Ms Trusha Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant Ms Manisha Kala for Mr GM Amin for the respondents ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 02/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In
the above captioned appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (ýSthe Actýý) read with Section 96 of the
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, what is challenged is the legality of
award dated 18.08.2006 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Ahmedabad (Rural) in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.301 of 2002.
By the said award, the learned Civil Judge had awarded additional
compensation at the rate of Rs.47.70 ps. per Sq. Mtr., as against
the claim of Rs.100/- per Sq. Mtr. made by the claimants.
2. The
Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Saurashtra Branch Canal,
Division No.2/4, Bhavnagar had proposed to acquire agricultural
lands of village : Chokdi, Taluka Dhandhuka, District Ahmedabad, for
the purpose of construction of canal under Narmada Project. Pursuant
to that, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which
was published in the Official Gazette on 27.04.2000. Thereafter, the
State Government made declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which
was published on 30.08.2000. The interested persons were served with
notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The
claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and
claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per Sq. Mtr. However,
the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the
claimants at the rate of Rs.1.80 per Sq. Mtr.
3. The
claimants, seeking higher compensation, submitted an application
under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition
Officer to refer their cases to the Court for the purpose of
determining the just and fair compensation. Accordingly, the
reference was made to the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) where
they were registered as Land Reference Case Nos.301 of 2002.
4. On
behalf of the claimants, one Umedsang Manubhai was examined at
Exh.19. The claimant in his deposition had referred an award passed
in Land Acquisition Reference No.2720 of 1996. At his instance, the
said award is exhibited as Exh.15. The said award is for the lands
of village Chokdi for which notification under Section 4 was
published on 07.06.1993. The claimant deposed that the lands
acquired in the year 1993 and the lands for which the Reference
Nos.301 of 2002 was filed, were only at a very short distance.
Though the said witness was cross-examined for the learned counsel
for the acquiring authorities, nothing substantial could be
elicited, nor the assertions made by the witness could be
demonstrated to be false.
5. On
behalf of the acquiring authorities, award at Exh. 23, measurement
sheet at Exh.24, award statement at Exh.25 were produced. The
appellant had not led any oral evidence and had not examined any
witness in their support. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by
the parties, the Reference Court was of the opinion that the previous
award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of very same
village, was a relevant piece of evidence and furnished good guidance
for the purpose of determining of the market value of the lands
acquired in the instant case. The learned Judge noticed that
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the
Official Gazette on 07.06.1993 for the lands acquired earlier;
whereas, in the instant case, the notification under the said Section
was issued on 23.04.2000. He, thereafter, calculated the reasonable
rise in the price of the lands at the rate of 10% per annum. For
earlier acquisition of the lands, award at the rate of Rs.27.60/- per
Sq. Mtr. was passed. Considering that aspect, the Trial Judge derived
a figure of Rs.47.50/- per Sq. Mtr.
6. I
have heard Ms. Trusha Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for
the appellants and Mr. Gopinath Amin, learned Counsel for the
claimants. Ms. Patel submitted that the claimants had not produced
sale bills or purchase bills to show the expenditure incurred by the
claimants for fertilizers, seeds, medicines, etc. She further
contended that even apart from the above bills, no document is
produced to prove that the lands in dispute were of equal fertility,
potentiality and having equal facilities as compared to the lands for
which L.A.R. No.2720 of 1996 was passed. She had contended that the
learned Trial Judge had not discussed the aspect as to how the said
award was comparable. In response, Mr.Amin had submitted that as the
lands of earlier reference were nearby lands of the same village, it
can safely be presumed that the award was comparable. Ms Patel has
alternatively submitted that even if the award passed in
L.A.Reference No.2720 of 1996 is taken into consideration, the same
was under challenge before this Court by way of First Appeals
Nos.5081 to 5092 of 2006. It is also pointed out that the Division
Bench of this Court has by its order dated 18th February
2006 partly allowed the appeals and the total compensation is reduced
to Rs.25/- per square meter. She has, therefore, contended that the
compensation awarded in the present case should also be
proportionately reduced.
7. This
Court has considered the record and proceedings supplied by the
learned counsel for the claimants which includes the documentary
evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court. Having
gone through the entire record and decision of this Court in First
Appeals No.5081 of 2006 to 5092 of 2006, I am of the opinion that the
compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge is required to be
modified to the extent the comparable award is modified by the
Division Bench of this Court. I further hold that the learned Civil
Judge has rightly considered the award passed in LAR Case No.2720 of
1996 as the same was comparable in facts and circumstances of the
present case. . The said reference was for the nearly lands of the
very same village having similar fertility, potentiality and
facilities. However, as the said award is modified by this Court on
18th February 2006 by partly allowing First Appeals
Nos.5081 to 5092 of 2006 filed by the State of Gujarat, this Court
also feels to modify the award passed in LAR No.301 of 2002 to that
extent.
8. I
do not find much substance in the first contention of learned
Assistant Government Pleader to the
effect that the award passed in LAR No.2720 to 2731 of 1996 was not
comparable to the present case. However, I accept her alternative
submission that the award is required to be modified to the extent
the award is required to be modified to the extent the award in LAR
No.2720 of 1996 is modified. On calculation, it is found that the
claimants are entitled to to the total compensation at the rate of
Rs.42.50 per square meter.
9. I
further believe that by no stretch of imagination it can said that
Rs.42.50 per square meter can be termed as excessive or exorbitant
when the State has compulsorily acquired the said lands against the
wish of the claimants and when they have lost their livelihood. The
award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer granting the
compensation at the rate of Rs.1.77 per square meter was arbitrary,
oppressive and atrocious and hence the trial Court has rightly held
that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate.
10. It
is well settled principle of law that the previous award passed by
the reference court relating tot he lands of same village is a very
good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining market value of
similar lands acquired from the same village subsequently. In the
facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the
opinion that the award passed by the Reference Court is required to
be modified to the aforesaid extent. Hence, the appeals are partly
allowed.
11. For
the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. It is declared
that the claimants are entitled to get Rs.42.50 per square meter
including the amount already awarded to them by the Land Acquisition
Officer. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is
directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment immediately.
The amount deposited by the appellants at the time of admission of
the appeals may be disbursed to the respective claimants after
verification of their identity, if not disbursed.
12. Office
is directed to send R & P to the concerned authority.
(Bhagwati
Prasad, J.)
*mohd