Whether Reporters Of Local Papers … vs Mr. N.D.Nanavati on 15 November, 2011

         (Spl.H.C.D.D 28E)
         G.P.Bve-(J)-191-18,000-6-89.
         G.R.J.D No. 4398 dated 3.7.16.


                  FIRST APPEAL NO. 1238 OF 1981



         Date of decision: 22.9.1994.


         For Approval and Signature




         Hon'ble Mr.Chief Justice :            B.N.Kirpal



         Hon'ble Mr. Justice            :      R.K.Abichandani


1.       Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be         allowed
         to see the judgement?


2.       To be referred to the Reporter of not?


3.       Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
         of the judgement?


4.       Whether this case involves a substantial question
         of   law    as  to   the interpretation of the
         Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made
         thereunder?


5.       Whether    it   is   to   be   circulated   to the Civil


         Judge?



Appearance:


Mr. D.D.Vyas, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. N.D.Nanavati, Government Pleader for the respondent No.1
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 served.


Coram:   B.N.Kirpal, C.J.      & R.K.Abichandani,J.
Date :   22.9.1994


ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per B.N.Kirpal, C.J.)


The challenge in this appeal is to the judgement of the
Assistant Judge, Junagadh, who awarded compensation at the rate of
 Rs.   1,42,500/- per hectare in respect of land of the appellant
which had been acquired.


Vide a notification issued on 24th December, 1971 under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, land of the appellant
admeasuring 1 hectare 29 acre 62 square metre was sought to be
acquired.   The Land Acquisition Collector awarded a sum of Rs.
1,83,676/- for the land, Rs. 17,848/- for trees, houses or other
immovable things, Rs. 1,100/- for crops or huts.


Not being satisfied with the aforesaid award, reference was
made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.          Vide a
judgement dated 15th January, 1981 the market value of the land
was fixed at Rs. 1,42,500/- per hectare. The result of this was
that a further sum of Rs. 14,502.50, in addition to what had been
awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector, became payable to the
appellant.


In the appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant has
submitted that the compensation should have been awarded by
determining the value of land at Rs. 1,25,000/- per acre.


We have gone through the judgement of the Assistant Judge
and we find that various documents were produced in evidence on
behalf of the claimant with the consent of the Counsel for the
respondent.   Naturally, the said documents were taken in evidence
and were exhibited. It is indeed surprising that apart from the
fact that no evidence were led by the Government, representative
of the Land Acquisition Officer admitted all the documents which
were produced by the claimant before the Assistant Judge. The
documents produced were not certified copies but they purported to
be original documents, which would normally but for the consent of
the Government Counsel, would have required proof of the execution
of the sale. Be that it may, the case must proceed on the basis
of the documents which were duly exhibited in this manner.


We however, find that the judgement of the Assistant Judge
calls for no interference. All the documents which were produced
and were allegedly executed prior to the issuance of Section 4
notification show that the market value of land could not be more
than Rs. 1,42,500/- as has been determined in the present case.
Our attention was invited to Exhibit 98 which is a copy of the
sale deed for the land bearing survey No. 382. The price of land
vide said sale deed comes to only Rs. 55,000/- per acre and what
has been awarded in the present case is Rs. 57,000/- per acre.


Mr.    Vyas, the learned Counsel for the appellant however,
submitted that compensation should have been awarded at the rate
of Rs.    1,25,000/- per acre on the sale deed dated 6th September,
1976 - Exhibit 54. The land in the subject matter of the said
sale deed was sold by the Public Trust and the Assistant Judge has
 given cogent reasons for not following the same. The reasons
given by him are that the land which is the subject matter of
Exhibit 54 is far away from the land in the reference. Secondly,
the land which was the subject matter of Exhibit 54 is located in
an area which was predominantly residential as against the present
land which was, at that time agricultural land. What is most
important however, is that exhibit 54 is a sale deed which was
executed   nearly   5 years after the issuance of Section 4
notification in the present case. On this ground alone the said
sale deed becomes irrelevant, more so for the reasons that before
the sale deed was executed the land had already been converted to
non-agricultural use by virtue of an order dated 15th June, 1972
passed by the Collector.


In our opinion, therefore compensation of land in the
present case could not possibly exceed Rs. 57,000/- per acre and
the same has been awarded to the appellant. We find no merit in
this appeal and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as
to costs.


 -----