{"id":52731,"date":"2010-02-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-08-07T20:24:14","modified_gmt":"2016-08-07T14:54:14","slug":"krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp;<\/div>\n
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/394\/2000\t 1\/ 23\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 394 of 2000\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No. 402 of 2000\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nKRISHAK\nBHARTI CO.OP.LTD. - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nGOMANBHAI\nDURLABHBHAI AHIR & 2 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nMANISH R BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR KM SHETH for Defendant(s) : 1   2.\n \n\nMR ANAND L\nSHARMA, AGP for Defendant :\n3. \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/02\/2010 \n\n \n\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n
Heard
\n\tlearned senior advocate Mr. MR Bhatt on behalf of appellant Krishak
\n\tBharti Cooperative Ltd (KRIBHCO), learned advocate Mr. KM Sheth
\n\tappearing for respondent claimants and learned AGP Mr. Sharma
\n\tappearing for respondent   State Authority.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tappellant has challenged award passed by Reference Court in Land
\n\tReference Cases no. 223 of 1987, 204 to 210 of 1987 and 76 of 1987.
\n\tThe main reference is Land Reference Case No. 223\/87. These are
\n\tgroup of 9 cases of Land References filed by respondent claimants
\n\tarising out of common award passed by Land Acquisition Officer u\/s
\n\t11 of Land Acquisition Act in respect to lands situated in village
\n\tVariav and claimants are also residing at Variav District Surat. The
\n\tLand Acquisition Officer has passed award on 3\/6\/1985. All pending
\n\tland reference cases consolidated in Land Reference Case no. 223\/87.\n<\/p>\n
According
\n\tto learned Senior advocate Mr. Bhatt, lands mentioned in Cl. no. 2
\n\tand 3 in award at page 7 are acquired by Government for a purpose of
\n\tHajira Kribhco Railway Line. The first notification under section 4
\n\tof Land Acquisition Act has been published on 9\/4\/1981 and section 6
\n\tnotification was published on 27\/4\/1982. The claimants have put
\n\ttheir case for inadequate compensation and demanded enhanced
\n\tcompensation to range of Rs. 50\/- per sqmt and 30% solatium claim
\n\thas been demanded by claimants. The objection filed by claimants was
\n\theard by Land Acquisition Officer and fixed Rs. 3\/- per sqmt.
\n\tThereafter, claimants have aggrieved from award passed by Land
\n\tAcquisition Officer made references u\/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act.
\n\tThe reference was being made by claimants through Collector to
\n\tDistrict Court, Surat and references are sent to Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n
According
\n\tto claimants, Land Acquisition Officer did not consider land’s
\n\tsituation, its fertility and crops being grown up in said lands. The
\n\tlands which have been acquired is situated in Gujarat State and
\n\tDistrict which is second number as industrial District and also
\n\tleading industries of art silk and diamond have been established in
\n\tcity in Surat and property, which has been acquired is only one
\n\tKilometer away from Surat. The land which has been acquired is joint
\n\twith Surat by constructing bridge at Rander and land which has been
\n\tacquired is connected with Surat City.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tLand Acquisition Officer has not considered that land has an
\n\tirrigation facility and farmers are taking three time crops in one
\n\tyear. The claimants are taking crops of Cotton, parvar, tuver (green
\n\tand dry), paddy, vegetables, sugercan, wheat, juwar, etc. By
\n\tcultivating cotton, they are getting 13 to 14 quintal of cotton and
\n\tper acre, they are getting production of 500 to 600 quintal and they
\n\tare getting huge profit. In same way, in parvar and juwar also, they
\n\tare getting huge profit, but this aspect is not considered by Land
\n\tAcquisition Officer.\n<\/p>\n
According
\n\tto claimants, Land Acquisition officer has not considered that
\n\tproperty is fallen within residential zone of Suda Development area
\n\tand also same property is fallen in agricultural zone. The village
\n\tVariav is very near to Taluka Headquarter and there is nearest
\n\trailway station Utran which is 2 km away and Surat Railway Station
\n\tis situated 15 km away and it is connected with Surat Kosad Pucca
\n\troad and Variav village has all amenities like Electricity power
\n\tsupply, drinking water, primary school, buses etc. Near to acquired
\n\tland, there are so many industrial company like Kribhco, NTPC, Essar
\n\tSteel, ONGC, Reliance, Indian Oil Corporation, GIDC and future
\n\tdevelopment of this acquired land has not been considered by Land
\n\tAcquisition Officer. At the time of fixing compensation amount and
\n\talso market rate which was prevailing at the time of land has been
\n\tacquired has not been considered. The sale instances produced by
\n\tclaimants have also not been considered and i.e. how award passed by
\n\tLand Acquisition Officer Rs. 3\/- per sqmt is too much less.
\n\tTherefore, References have been made by claimants with demand of Rs.
\n\t50\/- per sqmt.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tbehalf of appellant, written statement was filed denying averment
\n\tmade in claim petitions filed by claimants in references and
\n\taccording to appellant Land Acquisition Officer has passed proper,
\n\tlegal and valid award after giving opportunity to claimants. The
\n\tLand Acquisition Officer has visited site and after considering
\n\tfertility of lands, profitability and future development, passed
\n\tlegal and valid award. According to appellant, Reference is required
\n\tto be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
From
\n\tthe pleadings between parties as referred above, issues have been
\n\tframed by Reference Court. The written statement filed by claimants
\n\texh 35. Initially, claimants have demanded Rs. 7, but subsequently
\n\tamendment was made in application and demanded Rs. 40\/- per sqmt
\n\tbeing a market price of lands in question. Vide Exh.17, Ishwarbhai
\n\tJivanbhai Patel has deposed that he is claimant of Land Reference
\n\tCase No. 204 of 1987 and he is giving evidence on behalf of all
\n\tclaimants. He produced village form no. 7\/12 from Exh.18 to 28,
\n\tvaluation report of Government approved Valuer Shri Omprakash Pandya
\n\tat Exh. 38, certified copy of award declared by Land Acquisition
\n\tOfficer in respect to village Chhaparbhata, Taluka Choryasi,
\n\tDistrict Surat Exh.35 and claimants have also produced plan
\n\tsanctioned at Exh.36. The claimant Shri Ishwarbhai has deposed that
\n\tall lands are having irrigation facility. Over and above, in some
\n\tland, irrigation has been made by wells, electrical tubewell and
\n\tcanal. The claimants are taking crops of cotton, Parval, Tuver
\n\t(green and dry), Paddy, Vegetables, Sugar can, Choda, wheat, juwar
\n\tetc. The land is black, goradu Jarayat and claimants are taking
\n\tthree crops in a year. Thereafter, claimants have gave further
\n\tevidence in para 10, 11, 12 and 13 which are quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t 10. The
\n\tclaimants are also taking three crops of tuver in one season and per
\n\tacre, the yield of green tuver is around 40 to 45 quintals and the
\n\trate at the time of prevalent was Rs. 500\/- per quintal of green
\n\ttuver. Therefore, from green Tuver, they are getting Rs. 22,500\/-
\n\tand from dry Tuver, they are getting Rs. 1800\/-, total Rs. 24300\/-
\n\tthey are getting in a year.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. The claimants
\n\thave also cultivated the cotton and they are getting 13 to 14
\n\tquintals of cotton out of their cultivation. The rate of cotton at
\n\tthe time was around Rs. 500 to 600\/- per quintal. Therefore, annual
\n\tyield of 14 quintals multiply by Rs. 500\/-, total they are getting
\n\tRs. 7000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. The claimants
\n\tare cultivating the vegetables like parvar, ladies finger, brinjal,
\n\ttomato, papdi etc. and per acre, they are getting 60 to 70 quintals
\n\tof vegetables in one season and rate of parvar was around Rs. 400\/-
\n\tper quintal. Therefore, they would have got multiply Rs. 400\/-,
\n\ttotal Rs. 2400\/- per acre.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. The claimants
\n\tare also cultivating Juwar and per acre, they are getting 50 to 60
\n\tquintals of crop in one season and per rate of quintal of Juwar
\n\taround Rs. 400\/- to Rs. 500\/- multiply by 50, total amount of Rs.
\n\t20,000\/-. So, in considering all these various crops, annual yield
\n\tof each crop during the year, it is very much clear that the income
\n\tof the claimant is around Rs. 15000\/- per acre and after deducting
\n\tthe expenses of cultivation, labour charges, fertilizers, pesticides
\n\tetc. Therefore, the Hon’ble Court considered that in all two crops,
\n\tin a year is taken out of the land and that is why crops of tuver
\n\tand cotton or parvar and juwar, then annual income out of one acre
\n\tof land will be around Rs. 30,000\/- to Rs. 35,000\/- and if the
\n\taforesaid amount is divided by 4000 for finding out the income out
\n\tof sq. metre, then it would come to Rs. 7-75 is multiplied by 10, it
\n\twould come to Rs. 77.50 per sq. mtr. So, it is also respectfully
\n\tsubmitted that the aforesaid amount Rs. 77.50 would come considering
\n\tthat the claimants take two crops in a year though they actually
\n\ttake three crops in a year out of the land in question. If we deduct
\n\texpenses 25% from the aforesaid amount, even then Rs. 58=12 ps. Per
\n\tsqmt, is a net income per Sq. metre to the claimants. However, in
\n\tpresent case, the claimants have only demanded Rs. 40\/- per sq.
\n\tmetre. So, in deciding the claim amount, the aforesaid ratio laid
\n\tdown by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, is required to be determined in
\n\tfixing the price. and multiplier of 10 is a just and equitable one.\n<\/p>\n
\tBefore Reference Court,
\n\tMr. Pandya Government Approved Valuer was examined by Exh.31 and he
\n\thas also given detailed evidence in para 14, 15, 16 and 17 which are
\n\tquoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t 14. Shri
\n\tOmprakash Pandya, Government approved valuer has also deposed before
\n\tthis Court at Exh. 31. The valuation report is also produced in this
\n\tcase and the Government approved valuer has come to the income
\n\tcapitalization method and considered two crops in one year taken by
\n\tclaimants that is why cotton and vegetables parvar and considering
\n\tthe value of land for cotton would be around Rs. 19=75 per sq. metre
\n\tand Rs. 43.50 per sq. meter for vegetables parvar, the total value
\n\tcomes to Rs. 62=77 Ps. Per sq. metre and thereafter, deducting 25%
\n\tamount under the head of expenditure for cultivation, the remaining
\n\tamount of Rs. 47=08 Ps. Per sq. metre has been arrived at by the
\n\tvaluer after applying the multiplier of 10 as per the Judgment of
\n\tthe Hon’ble Supreme Court and in deposition, the said valuer has
\n\talso deposed that Rs. 47=08Ps, comes after applying multiplier of
\n\t10, and in the deposition of the said valuer, he himself has stated
\n\tthat cropping pattern was adopted by the farmers of the village
\n\tVariav, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat, is the same and that is
\n\twhy, the report of the valuer, is applicable to the present case.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. The claimants
\n\tare selling their vegetables in Market and Agricultural Produce
\n\tMarket Committee. Document has been produced before this Court to
\n\tshow that the claimants are getting price of crops. Over and above,
\n\tthe land which has been acquired is only 2 Km away from Surat City.
\n\tIt comes in SUDA plan. This fact has been mentioned in the award of
\n\tthe Land Acquisition Officer. In the award, it has also been
\n\tmentioned that the claimants’ properties fall in the residential
\n\tzone and some properties fall in the agricultural zone. Variav
\n\tvillage land is very nearer to Taluka Headquarter and the nearest
\n\trailway station is Utran which is 15 km. away from Surat Railway
\n\tStation. Variav is connected with Surat Kusad Pucca road and the
\n\tvillage has facility like electricity, power supply, drinking water,
\n\tprimary schools, buses. The land of the village Variav is cultivated
\n\tby the claimants themselves and there is no tenancy. The village is
\n\talso nearer to Amroli bridge from which one can enter into Surat
\n\tcity directly. Near to Variav Village, there are industrial
\n\tcompanies like KRIBHCO, NTPC, ESSAR STEEL, ONGC, RELIANCE, INDIAN
\n\tOIL CORPORATION, GIDC, JAHANGIR COTTON PROCESSING UNIT, TUVER pulses
\n\tMills etc and the village Chhaparbhatha is situated only 2 km away
\n\tfrom the village Variav.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. Chhaparbhatha
\n\tvillage land has been acquired for the housing purpose and the
\n\towners have been given compensation at the rate of 49\/- per sq.
\n\tmetre. So, it is submitted that two villages are adjoining to each
\n\tother and the nature of the land is similar one. Therefore, the said
\n\tfact is required to be considered while determining the market value
\n\tof the land of the present claimants. The Land acquisition officer
\n\thimself has awarded Rs. 49\/- per sq. metre to the owners of village
\n\tChhaparbhatha. To show this fact, the claimants have produced the
\n\tdocumentary evidence of maps of SUDA and Urban Land Ceiling.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. All the
\n\tdocumentary evidence has been produced, has been proved by the
\n\tapplicant and considering the deposition all claimants are taking
\n\tout three crops in a year from the land in question, the demand made
\n\tby the claimants considering that they are taking two crops in a
\n\tyear, the value of the land comes to Rs. 58\/- after deducting the
\n\texpenses. However, the claimants have only demanded Rs. 40\/- per sq.
\n\tmetre which is reasonable, just and proper. No sale instances during
\n\tthe period of notification under section 4 of the Act and some of
\n\tthe sale instances which were there were relating to the land
\n\tsituated far away from the village Variav. Therefore, when the
\n\totherside has not produced any documentary evidence, as per the
\n\tjudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court when no sale instances are
\n\trequired to be considered and they are not proved by the vendor and
\n\tvendee and particularly, when the sale instances are not available
\n\tnear the year of notification under section 4, considering the
\n\tmarket value of the land on the basis of capitalization methods, is
\n\tthe best method for determining the market value of the land of the
\n\tclaimants. Therefore, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment,
\n\tthe present Reference may kindly be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above facts stated by
\n\tclaimants in their written statement exh 35 and also relying upon
\n\tdecision of Apex Court reported in 1996 (3) SCC 592 and 1996 (1) SCC\n<\/p>\n
\t631. Against this, it is necessary to note that appellant has not
\n\tproduced any evidence before Reference Court. Not only that
\n\tappellant has not even produced any documents being rebuttal
\n\tevidence before Reference Court. None was examined before Reference
\n\tCourt by appellant and no sale instances produced by appellant
\n\tbefore Reference Court. Only oral submission is made by advocate of
\n\tappellant Mr. MR Joshi before Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n
According
\n\tto appellant, in support of claim made by claimants, no documentary
\n\tevidence is produced by claimants, therefore, their oral submissions
\n\tshould not have to be believed by Reference Court but it is
\n\tnecessary to note that claimant was cross examined by appellant
\n\tadvocate before Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n
Thereafter,
\n\tReference Court in para 26 come to conclusion that land of Variav
\n\tvillage belongs to claimants is not similar to Chhaparabhata
\n\tvillage. Therefore, not to accept demand made by claimant because no
\n\tdocumentary evidence produced by claimant that lands belonging to
\n\tVariav village and Chhaparabhata village are similar in potential
\n\tvalue, fertility and utility but Reference Court has ignored
\n\tevidence of claimants which was cross examined by appellant advocate
\n\twhere detailed evidence is given by claimants Exh.17 and village
\n\tChhaparabhata is one kilometer away from village Variav. The
\n\tclaimants has produced documentary evidence of map of Suda and Urban
\n\tLand Ceiling to justify or proving that land of both villages Variav
\n\tand Chhaparbhata are adjoining to each other and naturally all the
\n\tland is similar one. Against this evidence of claimant, there is no
\n\trebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. Even
\n\tthough, finding is given by Reference Court that lands of both
\n\tvillage Variav and Chhaparabhata is not similar. On what basis, this
\n\tfinding is given by Reference Court, is not discussed by Reference
\n\tCourt in para 26. The Reference Court has also come to conclusion
\n\tthat demand made by claimants based on village Chhaparabhata. The
\n\tclaimants are not entitled Rs. 49\/- because lands of both villages
\n\tare similar or not? For such no deposition is made before Reference
\n\tCourt by claimants. This finding is given in para 30 of award. The
\n\tReference Court has come to conclusion in para 31 and 32 which are
\n\tquoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t 31. From the
\n\tabove submission of both the learned advocates and the documentary
\n\tevidence produced before this Court, I find that, deposition of
\n\tRanjitbhai is believable and by the documentary evidence and 7\/12
\n\tand the award produced in this case, it is quite clear that all
\n\tclaimants’ land has a irrigation facility and a canal facility or a
\n\twell irrigation facility ad the claimants are taking in one year two
\n\tcrops.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. From the
\n\tdocumentary evidence, it is also clear that the claimants are taking
\n\tthe crops of paddy, vegetables, lady finger, tuver (green), Jowar,
\n\trice etc. Different claimants have taken their crop from their field
\n\tand from that, they have made some profit. This fact could has to
\n\tbelieve because whenever there is an irrigation facility. It is a
\n\tprofitable to the agriculturist. No doubt, in present case, when the
\n\tland has been acquired, on that period, what type of crops the
\n\tclaimants have taken from their field, for that, there is no
\n\tdeposition and no documentary evidence. But, when irrigation
\n\tfacilities available to the present claimants’ land, this fact has
\n\tbeen mentioned in award itself, it means that it is the Court’s duty
\n\tto find out the profitability when the irrigation facility available
\n\tto the claimant’s field.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Reference Court has
\n\tnot believed evidence of Government Approved Valuer Mr. Pandya
\n\tbecause he has taken charge Rs. 500\/- only. The Reference Court has
\n\talso come to conclusion that claimant has not produced any
\n\tdocumentary evidence that how much quintal crops have been taken
\n\tfrom their crops. Thereafter, Reference Court has finally come to
\n\tconclusion in para 35 to 37, which are quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t 35. In present
\n\tcase, from the documentary evidence and oral evidence also, I find
\n\tthat the submission of the total income and profit as per the
\n\tsubmission of the claimant, is unbelievable, then, it is a duty of
\n\tthe Court to decide the income even though irrigation facility is
\n\tavailable to the present claimants’ field, naturally, this Court has
\n\ta discretion to decide when claimants have irrigation facility, to
\n\tfind out a profit ratio what average irrigation facility has a
\n\tprofit ratio and calculating the profit ratio of the irrigation
\n\tfacility, I find that the claimants have failed to prove the profit,
\n\teven then, I find that at least, there will be a net profit income
\n\tof 2.90 Ps. Per sq. metre is profitable ratio and it is a nominal
\n\tincome can be considered as a profit when an irrigation facility is
\n\tavailable to the field and as per 10 multiplier ratio is applicable
\n\tlaid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court. I have no hesitation that Rs.
\n\t10\/- or 12\/- compensation, is an adequate and proper. But, the Land
\n\tAcquisition officer has only granted the compensation Rs. 3\/-, is
\n\ttoo much less amount and even though there is no evidence before
\n\tthis Court, I have no hesitation if there is only monsoon crop is
\n\tavailable to the farmer, even then, there will be a more profit than
\n\tRs. 1\/- per sq. metre and that is why, I find that the compensation
\n\tawarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is unbelievable and totally
\n\tless amount in comparison considering the potentiality of the
\n\tacquired land.\n<\/p>\n
\t36. Over and
\n\tabove, submission of the learned advocate for the claimants Shri
\n\tQadri that Chhaparabhata village Rs. 49\/- compensation should be
\n\tawarded, is also not applicable because there is no deposition
\n\tbefore this Court that Chhaparabhatha village land is similar to the
\n\tpresent claimants’ land which has been acquired and that is why as
\n\tper Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment, I can not grant Rs. 40\/- to the
\n\tpresent claimants.\n<\/p>\n
\t37. The Land
\n\tAcquisition Officer relied upon the sale instances in his award
\n\twhich are far away from the acquired land and such sale instances,
\n\tcan not be taken into consideration because when surrounding
\n\tproperties or surrounding sale instances is not available, only
\n\tCourt has discretion to fix the compensation price and from the
\n\tdocumentary evidence produced by the parties and from the oral
\n\tdeposition, Court has come to the conclusion from the documentary
\n\tevidence, I find that the compensation amount awarded by the Land
\n\tAcquisition Officer is too much less and the claimants have gone
\n\tfail to prove the compensation amount Rs. 40\/- per sq. metre, this
\n\tis Court’s duty to fix the price and that is why, on broad principle
\n\tof natural justice and when no irrigation facility available to the
\n\tfield, the farmers can not get less than Rs. 1\/- profit per sq.
\n\tmetre from his field. I find that Rs. 10\/- is fit price to be
\n\tcompensated to the present claimants for their acquired land and
\n\tthat is why, I find that the present claimant is entitled to Rs.
\n\t10\/- per sq. metre.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe contention raised by
\n\tlearned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt that 50% cultivation cost is not
\n\tdeducted by Reference Court while determining or enhancing market
\n\tprice of lands in question. He relied upon decision of Apex Court
\n\treported in AIR 1997 SC 1845 and 2005 (6) SCC 454 and submitted that
\n\tReference Court has not given any sufficient reason why he differ
\n\tfrom award passed by Land Acquisition Officer.\n<\/p>\n
Learned
\n\tadvocate Mr. Sheth emphasized that sufficient documents produced by
\n\tclaimants i.e. village form vide exh 18 to 28 and that documents
\n\thave been proved by evidence of claimants Exh.17 and detail evidence
\n\tis given about crops available from lands in question having
\n\tirrigation facility and report of Government Valuer Exh.38 and award
\n\tpassed by Land Acquisition Officer in respect to village
\n\tChhaparabhata Exh.35 and evidence of Mr. Pandya Government Approved
\n\tExh.31 not properly appreciated by Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n
He
\n\tsubmitted that in monsoon season at least from lands in question
\n\tcrops have been produced and received by claimants. He relied upon
\n\tdecision of 2002 (2) GLH 435 and decision of Division Bench of this
\n\tCourt in first appeal no. 1942\/2003 decided on 19\/6\/2006.\n<\/p>\n
Against
\n\targuments made by learned advocate Mr. Sheth, learned senior
\n\tadvocate Mr. Bhatt again emphasized that there is no relevancy about
\n\tsimilarity of lands of both villages Variav and Chhaparabhata
\n\testablished by claimants and Reference Court has rightly not relied
\n\tevidence of Mr. Pandya Government Approved Valuer and merely on
\n\tpresumption amount has been enhanced by Reference Court. Therefore,
\n\tit require to be quashed and set aside. However, against multiplier
\n\tof 10 applied by Reference Court, he is not raised any objection but
\n\the suggested that instead of Rs. 10\/-, Rs. 5\/- may be reasonable
\n\tamount.\n<\/p>\n
I
\n\thave considered submission made by both learned advocates and I have
\n\tperused award passed by Reference Court, Surat. It is necessary to
\n\tnote that Reference Court has not properly dealt with matter on
\n\tmerits. The evidence of claimant Exh.17 give detail about distances,
\n\tcrops, potential value, fertility and utility of lands of both
\n\tvillages Variav and Chhaparabhata and also gave evidence by claimant
\n\tthat surrounding lands area covered by industrial area and various
\n\tindustries are situated one kilometer away from village Variav and
\n\tvillage Variav is one or two kilometer away from Surat city and also
\n\tdetail evidence have been given about quantity of crops obtained by
\n\tclaimants three times in a year and two kilometer away Taluka head
\n\tquarter and railway station Utran and Surat Railway station is
\n\tsituated 15 kilometer away. Against oral evidence of claimants,
\n\tfacts which are stated on oath there is no rebuttal evidence
\n\tproduced by appellant before Reference Court. The written statement
\n\tmade by advocate of claimant exh 35 against which no rebuttal
\n\tevidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. The evidence
\n\tof Exh.17 Ishwarbhai made clear before Reference Court as referred
\n\tin para 9 that all lands are having irrigation facility. Over and
\n\tabove, in some lands, irrigation has been made by Wells, electrical
\n\tTubewell and canal and claimants are taking crops of Cotton, Parval,
\n\tTuver (green and dry), Peddy, Vegetables, Sugarcan, Wheat, Jawar
\n\tetc. The land is black Goradu Jarayat and claimants are taking three
\n\tcrops in a year. The income also placed on record by oral evidence
\n\tof claimants in respect to each crops and how much amount they are
\n\tgetting is also clearly established before Reference Court by
\n\tclaimants. This aspect has been discussed by Reference Court in para
\n\t10 to 13 in detail.\n<\/p>\n
So
\n\tin light of aforesaid evidence and considering fact that there is no
\n\trebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court,
\n\tReference Court has come to conclusion that claimants are having
\n\tirrigation facility, therefore, must be getting profit from crops.
\n\tAfter calculating profit ratio of irrigation facility, minimum net
\n\tprofit comes to Rs. 2.90ps per sqmt and nominal income is to be
\n\tconsidered as profit when irrigation facility is available to field
\n\tthen ratio of 10 multiplier is applicable which comes to either Rs.
\n\t10 or Rs. 12\/- which is found to be an adequate and proper.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,
\n\tconsidering income from monsoon season, crops which available to
\n\tfarmer even then there will be more profit of Rs. 1\/- per sqmt. So
\n\tReference Court has considered minimum compensation which is
\n\tavailable from two crops Rs. 1\/- per sqmt and applied 10 multiplier
\n\tand awarded Rs. 10\/- while exercising discretionary power being
\n\tprice to compensation to present claimants for their acquired lands.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tcontention raised by learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt that cost of
\n\tcultivation is not deducted by Reference Court can not be accepted
\n\tin light of fact that minimum Rs. 1\/- per sqmt has been considered
\n\tby Reference Court being price of lands in question and 10
\n\tmultiplier is applied then question of deducting 50% does not arise.
\n\tThe Reference Court has given sufficient reason while differing with
\n\taward passed by Land Acquisition Officer and also considered that
\n\tfrom appellant side not a slightest evidence has been produced
\n\teither oral or documentary against evidence of claimants.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,
\n\tcontention raised by learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt relying upon
\n\taforesaid decision as referred above can not be accepted. The sale
\n\tinstances which was considered by Land Acquisition Officer not
\n\tproduced on record by appellant before Reference Court. Therefore,
\n\tpara 10 from decision of Division Bench of this Court in First
\n\tappeal no. 1942\/2003 to 1951\/2003 dated 19\/6\/2006 are quoted as
\n\tunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t 10. The
\n\tcontention that the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer,
\n\twhich has taken into consideration the sale deeds, should be
\n\tconfirmed by this Court, cannot be accepted. It is well to remember
\n\tthat the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under
\n\tSection 11 of the Act is nothing but an offer. Further, the award by
\n\titself has no evidenciary value. It is true that while determining
\n\tthe market value of the lands acquired, the Special Land Acquisition
\n\tOfficer has referred to certain sale deeds. However, during the
\n\tcourse of examination of certain witnesses by the acquiring body,
\n\tthose sale deeds could not be brought on record for consideration of
\n\tthe Court. If the acquiring body and the government were of the view
\n\tthat the market value of the lands acquired should be assessed on
\n\tthe basis of sale deeds, nothing prevented them from producing the
\n\tsale deeds on record of this case. Under the circumstances, the plea
\n\tthat on the basis of sale deeds referred to by the Special Land
\n\tAcquisition Officer in his award, determination of the market value
\n\tarrived at by the Reference Court should be set aside, has no
\n\tsubstance and is hereby rejected.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe head note D from
\n\tdecision of this Court in case of Special Land Acquisition
\n\tOfficer Vs. Kodarbhai Jenabhai & Ors reported in 2002 (2) GLH
\n\t435 which is also relevant is quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
 D Land
\n\tAcquisition Act, 1894   S. 23   Market price   Determination
\n\ton the basis of crop valuation   It is only in absence of evidence
\n\tto the contrary that 50% of gross income should be deducted as cost
\n\tof cultivation to arrive at net profit and when evidence is
\n\tavailable the Court is bound to calculate the cost of cultivation as
\n\tper such evidence   State of Gujarat V. Rama Rana,<\/a> 1997 GLR (3) SC
\n\t1954 relied upon.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tobservation made by Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat and
\n\tOrs Vs. Rama Rana reported in 1997 (2) SCC 693. The relevant
\n\thead note is quoted as under:\n<\/p>\n
 Land
\n\tAcquisition Act, 1894   S. 23   Determination of compensation on
\n\tthe basis of yield   Rule for appreciation of evidence
\n\tStatistics from Agriculture Department as to nature of crops and
\n\tprice prevailing at that time not produced   However, overall
\n\tevidence cannot be rejected on that ground   Court has a duty to
\n\tsubject the oral evidence to great scrutiny and evaluate the
\n\tevidence objectively and dispassionately to reach a finding on
\n\tcompensation   Multiple of 10 should be applied and deduction of
\n\t50% towards cultivation expenses should be made   Claimants are
\n\talso entitled to statutory benefits under amendment Act 68 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tlight of aforesaid observation made by this Court and considering
\n\tevidence of claimant as given before Reference Court while supplying
\n\tall details of crops received by claimant from lands in question and
\n\talso having irrigation facility, electrical Tube well, and in
\n\tmonsoon season also claimants are getting crops from lands in
\n\tquestion. The oral evidence of claimants having evidential value
\n\tunless some rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference
\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n
According
\n\tto my opinion, Rs. 3\/- which has been awarded by Land Acquisition
\n\tOfficer in such lands which is near to Surat city surrounding by
\n\tIndustrial Corporate body and near Utran Railway station having
\n\tvalue to atleast get Rs. 10\/- per sqmt as total amount which has
\n\tbeen awarded by Reference Court can not consider to be arbitrary,
\n\tunreasonable and unjust. The contention raised by learned senior
\n\tadvocate Mr. Bhatt merely pointing out some error of Reference Court
\n\twhere evidence of Valuer is not considered. The evidence of award
\n\tpassed by Land Acquisition Officer in respect to village
\n\tChhaparabhata is not considered by Reference Court but question is
\n\tthat what evidence produced by appellant against evidence produced
\n\tby claimant. In such circumstances, Reference Court has rightly
\n\trelied upon evidence of claimant and even considering minimum income
\n\twhich including 50% deducting of cultivation costs then 10
\n\tmultiplier and Rs. 1\/- per sqmt can not consider to be on higher
\n\tside. On the contrary, finding given by Reference Court is based on
\n\tlegal evidence. Therefore, contention raised by learned senior
\n\tadvocate Mr. Bhatt can not be accepted.\n<\/p>\n
In
\n\tview of aforesaid discussion award passed by Reference Court can not
\n\tconsider to be erroneous. On the contrary, looking to potential
\n\tvalue, fertility and utility of land in question which adjoining to
\n\tvillage Chhaparabhata and also near to Surat city Utran Railway
\n\tstation and surrounding by number of industries of corporate body
\n\twhich facts have been proved by claimants not denied by appellant.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore,
\n\tno error committed by Reference Court which would require
\n\tinterference by this Court. Hence, there is no substance in first
\n\tappeal. Accordingly, first appeal are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(H.K.RATHOD,
\nJ)<\/p>\n
#Dave<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010 Author: H.K.Rathod,&Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/394\/2000 1\/ 23 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 394 of 2000 To FIRST APPEAL No. 402 of 2000 ========================================================= KRISHAK BHARTI CO.OP.LTD. – Appellant(s) Versus GOMANBHAI DURLABHBHAI AHIR & […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-52731","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-07T14:54:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T14:54:14+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":4923,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-07T14:54:14+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-07T14:54:14+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T14:54:14+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010"},"wordCount":4923,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010","name":"Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-07T14:54:14+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishak-vs-gomanbhai-on-4-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishak vs Gomanbhai on 4 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52731","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=52731"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/52731\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=52731"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=52731"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=52731"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}