Gujarat High Court High Court

Whether vs Parbat on 29 August, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Whether vs Parbat on 29 August, 2011
Author: Ks Jhaveri,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

FA/3340/2008	 3/ 3	JUDGMENT 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

FIRST
APPEAL No. 3340 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 ?
			
			 
				 

 

				
			
		
	

 

======================================
 

SPECIAL
LAQ OFFICER & 2 - Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

PARBAT
RAMSHI - Defendant(s)
 

======================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
JANAK RAVAL ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. 
None
for Defendant(s) : 1, 
RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1.2.1,
1.2.2,1.2.3  
======================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
		
	

 

Date
: 29/08/2011 

 

ORAL
JUDGMENT

1.0 By
way of this appeal, the appellant-State has challenged the judgment
and award dated 12.03.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.),
Veraval whereby the trial Court awarded Rs.525/- per Are as an
additional amount for the acquired irrigated land.

2.0 Brief
facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1 The
land of the original claimants (defendants herein) situated at
Village Dharampur, Tal: Malia Hatina, Dist. Junagadh was acquired for
the purpose of construction of “Vrajmi Water Flow Scheme”.
The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on
20.12.1979 whereas Notification under Section 6 of the Act was
published on 4.5.1981.

2.2 The
land Acquisition Officer after following due procedure vide his award
dated 11.05.1982, awarded Rs.100/- per Are for the irrigated land,
Rs.65/- per Are for non-irrigated land and Rupee 1/- per Are for
waste (Kharaba) land against the claim of the claimants for Rs.1000/-
per Are for irrigated land.

2.3 Under
the protest claimants-defendants herein accepted the claim amount and
preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894 against the award of the Land Acquisition Officer before the
trial Court.

2.4 The
said reference came to be decided by the learned Civil Judge (SD),
Veraval, who by his judgment and award dted 12.3.2004 awarded
Rs.525/- per Are as an additional amount for the acquired irrigated
land. The appellant being aggrieved by the said award passed by the
learned trial Court preferred the present appeal.

3.0 Mr.

Janak Raval, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the
appellant-State has submitted that the Trial Court has committed
error in awarding Rs.525/- per Are as an additional amount for the
acquired irrigated land relying upon the evidences which are at
Exh.26 and 30 and the documentary evidences produced by the claimants
vide Exh.25. He has further submitted that the learned trial Court
also committed an error not relying upon the evidence of farmer
Kanaksinh Mandanji at Exh.42 and the documentary evidences produced
vide Exhs. 34 to 41.

4.0 Learned
counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the learned trial
Court has not considered the written submissions filed at Exh.44.

5.0 I
have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. While considering
the the evidences and documentary evidences on record the learned
trial Court has considered present case as per land of village
Amrapur of Reference Case No.20 of 1985 and held that land of the
present village is having same fertility as of land of Reference Case
No.20 of 1985. Further the learned trial Court has rightly held that
the State of Gujarat has not proved any other factor or disadvantage
which can lead to differ with the quality of the acquired land of
village Amrapur. After considering the the evidences and documentary
evidences on record, I am in complete agreement with the reasoning
recorded by the learned trial Court. Hence, as no case is made out,
present appeal is dismissed.

[K.

S. JHAVERI, J.]

Amit

   

Top