Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/217/2008 3/ 4 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 217 of 2008
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 223 of 2008
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 ?
======================================
THE
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER
Versus
NANIBEN
PRABHATSANT
======================================
Appearance
:
MR SS SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
with MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Appellants.
RULE SERVED for
Respondent.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 29/08/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged judgment and
order dated 17-9-2004 passed by learned Extra Assistant and Special
Judge (LAR), Ahmedabad (S.D.) in Land Reference Case No.2812 to 2818
of 1996, whereby said Reference Cases were partly allowed and
claimants were held entitled to get Rs.46.30 per sq.mtr. as
additional compensation over and above the compensation awarded by
Land Acquisition Officer.
2. Facts
leading to the present appeals are as under:
3. The
lands in question are situated at village Kadadara, Taluka Dehgam,
District Ahmedabad, which were acquired for the purpose of
construction of Narmada Canal. Notification under Section 4 and
Section of the Land Acquisition Act were published for the said
purpose. After following due process of law, Special Land
Acquisition Officer passed an award on 25-3-1996 and awarded Rs.2.55
ps. per sq.mtr. as compensation as against the claim of Rs.50/-.
Being aggrieved by it, reference cases being Land Reference Case
Nos.2812 to 2818 of 1996 were preferred at the instance of the
claimants before learned Extra Assistant and Special Judge (LAR),
Ahmedabad (S.D.). Wherein after considering the evidence on record
and also considering previous award, reference Court has granted
Rs.46.30 ps. per sq.mtr. as additional compensation with all
consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by it, the appellants have
preferred present appeals.
3. Heard,
learned AGP, Ms.Trusha Patel for the appellants and learned
advocate, Mr.Sheth for the respondents. At the outset, it is
submitted by both the sides that the issue involved in these appeals
is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 25-8-2008
rendered in First Appeal Nos.3856 to 3860 of 2008, wherein this Court
has observed as under:
?S3. Ms.
Patel, learned AGP has submitted that the reference court ought to
have appreciated that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded
adequate compensation and there is no reason for enhancing the same.
She has submitted that the reference court has committed grave error
in awarding an amount of Rs. 47.45 per sq. mtr as additional
compensation for the acquired land over and above the compensation
which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by placing reliance
on ex. 19 i.e. previous award of the same village in LAR No. 705/91.
4. Mr.
Sheth, learned advocate for the respondent has supported the award of
the reference court and has submitted that the reference court has
awarded the amount of compensation after duly taking into
consideration all the relevant aspects and therefore no interference
is called for by this Court.
5. This
court has gone into the materials placed on record including the
award of the reference court. The reference court has gone into the
evidence in detail and has passed the aforesaid award. The reference
court while fixing the market value of the lands in question has
considered the agricultural produces available from the land, the
sale deed and other documentary evidence available on record. The
reference court has relied upon Ex. 19 which is the award rendered in
LAR No. 716 of 1991 wherein various survey numbers of village
Kadadara were acquired. Based on the said award, the reference court
passed the award which is impugned in the present appeal. This court
is in complete agreement with the methodology and the principles
adopted by the reference court in passing the award.
6. In
the premises aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to
costs. In view of the order passed in the first appeals, the civil
applications shall not survive and are disposed of accordingly.??
5. As
submitted by both the sides, issue involved in these appeals is
covered by earlier decision of this Court. Therefore, reasonings
given by this Court while dismissing First Appeal Nos.3586 to
3860/2008 will govern present appeals also. Therefore, in view of
reasonings given in aforesaid appeals, which are reproduced herein
above, it is held that the reference court has gone into the evidence
in detail and has passed the aforesaid award. The reference court
while fixing the market value of the lands in question has considered
the agricultural produces available from the land, the sale deed and
other documentary evidence available on record. The reference court
has relied upon Ex. 22 which is the award rendered in LAR No. 716 of
1991 wherein various survey numbers of village Kadadara were
acquired. Based on the said award, the reference court passed the
award which is impugned in the present appeals. This court is in
complete agreement with the methodology and the principles adopted by
the reference court in passing the award.
6. In
the premises aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to
costs. Record and Proceedings, if received, may be sent back
forthwith.
(K.S.Jhaveri,
J.)
*malek
Top