FA/366920/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3669 of 2008 To FIRST APPEAL No. 3684 of 2008 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 LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus MADHUBEN CHANDRAVADAN PUJABHAI PATEL & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : GMR SUNIT SHAH, GP, in FA No.3669/2008 to 3674/2008. MR J.K. SHAH, AGP, in FA Nos.3675/2008 to 3680/2008. Mr. SHIVANG SHUKLA, AGP, in FA No.3681/2008 to 3684/2008. MR KM SHETH for Defendant(s) : 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3,1.2.4 - 2. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 08/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals at the instance of State of FA/366920/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT Gujarat, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, are against the judgment and award dated 27th April 2007 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Bharuch, in Land Reference Case No.862 of 1998 (Main) to 877 of 1998. 2. The land of the original claimant situated in the sim of village Dabha, Taluka Jambusar, District Bharuch was acquired for the public purpose of Dabha Minor-2 Canal of Narmada Yojna of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 15.07.1995 and that under section 6 was published on 13.06.1996. After following due procedure the Special Land Acquisition officer by his award dated 12.05.1997 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2.60 per square meters. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the original applicants filed reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Bharuch. Ultimately the learned Additional District Judge, fast Track Court No.4, Bharuch, vide his judgement and awarded dated 27.4.2007 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.38.40 per square meters, which is challenged in the present appeals. FA/366920/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that that the trial court has erroneously taken into consideration the price and yield method. 5. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record I am of the view that the Reference Court has considered the matter in detail and discussed the evidence in depth. The Reference Court has discussed the matter in paragraphs 12 to 16. The Tribunal has discussed about the crops and yield method. Para 16 reads as under: 16. In my opinion, there is no dispute between the parties regarding the ownership of the land and the dates of publication of notification under section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition act. Now considering the evidence produced by the claimants, the claimants have produced regarding the net annual yield of the agricultural crops of the acquired lands and for that the claimants who have given deposition have stated that they were getting the crops of cotton at 28 quintal per acre but it is too much. Therefore, in my opinion, the claimants were getting 15 qunital per acre and they getting Rs.33,300/- per acre per year from the crops of cotton and if 505 agricultural expenses would be deducted then it comes to Rs.16500/- per acre per year from the crops of cotton and if it is FA/366920/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT divided by 4000 (1 acre = 4000 sq.meters) then it comes to rs.4.16ps. Per sq. meter and if multiplied by 10 then it comes to Rs.41.60ps. Per square meter. The claimants have also stated that in the second season they were taking crops of ladyfinger is not shown in village form No.7/12 providing by the claimants, I am not believed that the claimants are taking crops of ladyfinger from acquired lands in second season. The claimants has also stated that some of the claimants were taking crops of tuver in their acquired lands. It is stated that they are getting 40 quntal green tuver and 12 quintal dry tuver but it seems too much. Therefore, I am of the opinion that they are getting 25 quntal of green tuver and 10 quintal of dry tuver, they are getting rs.18,750/- as annual income per acre from the crops of green tuver, if 50% agricultural expenses would be deducted then it comes to 2.34ps per sq.meter and if it multiplied by 10 then it comes to Rs.23.40ps per square meter they are getting Rs.14,000/- as annual income per acre from troops of dry tuver and if 505 agricultural expenses would be deducted then it comes to Rs.7000/- per square meter and if it is divided by 4000 then it comes to Rs.1.75 ps per square meter and if it multiplier by 10 then it comes to Rs.17.50ps per square FA/366920/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT meter. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the claimants are getting Rs.23.40ps per square meter from green tuver and Rs.17.50ps per square meter from dry tuver. They are also getting Rs.40.90 ps per square meter from green tuver and dry tuver. So on the basis of the agricultural yield, the claimants are entitled to get Rs.41.60ps per square meter to 40.90 per square meter from their acquired land.” 6. Apart from that the claimant has produced paperbook wherein Xerox copies of Exhibits 13, 29, 30, 31, 32, 36 to 38, and 42 to 44, etc. are produced to show the expenses which were incurred by the claimants. These documents clearly support the case of the claimants and the Tribunal has justified in passing the award in question. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning adopted and findings arrived at by the Reference Court. No case is made out to cause interference. Hence the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar