FA/5336/2006 1/9 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 5336 of 2006 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI ===================================================== 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 ? ===================================================== SPL.LAQ OFFICER - Appellant(s) Versus IBRAHIMBHAI KASAMBHAI GHANCHI & 3 - Defendant(s) ===================================================== Appearance : Mr.K.D.Pandya,learned AGP for Appellant(s) : 1, MR PADMRAJ K JADEJA for Defendant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 2, 4, MR BS BRAHMBHATT for Defendant(s) : 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.2.4,2.2.5 - 3. ===================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL and FA/5336/2006 2/9 JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI Date : 09/01/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.M.PANCHAL) 1. Admitted. Mr. Padmraj K.Jadeja, learned counsel, wavies service of notice on behalf of respondent No.1. Mr. B.S.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2/1 to 2/5 and 3. Mr.K.D.Pandya, learned AGP, states at the Bar that the interest of the appellant and that of the respondent No.4 is identical and not in conflict at all. In view of the statement made at the Bar by the learned AGP, this Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary for the appellant to effect service of notice of admission of this appeal upon respondent No.4. Having regard to the facts of the case,the appeal is taken up for final disposal today. 2. By filing the instant appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, what is challenged is the legality of common FA/5336/2006 3/9 JUDGMENT judgment and award dated August 31,2004, rendered by the learned 3rd Extra Assistant Judge and Special Judge (L.A.Q.),Ahmedabad (R) at Navrangpura, in Land Acquisition Case No.1258 of 1998, by which the claimants have been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.60.80 Ps. per sq.mt. for their acquired lands, over and above the compensation offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq.mt. by his award dated August 30,1994. 3. A proposal was made by the Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojana, Division No.4/3, Kadi, District Mehsana to acquire five survey Numbers of Viramgam Town, District -Ahmedabad for the public purpose of construction of Branch Canal No.2 under Narmada Project. On perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands mentioned in the said proposal were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, a Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued which was published in the Official Gazette on August 30,1992. The land owners were served with notices under Section 4 of the Act. On receipt of notices, they opposed the proposed acquisition. After considering their FA/5336/2006 4/9 JUDGMENT objections, the Special Land Acquisition Officer forwarded his report as contemplated by Section 5A (2) of the Act to the State Government. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands specified in the notification published under Section 4 (1) of the Act were needed for the public purpose of construction of Branch Canal No.2 under Narmada Project. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was also published in the Official Gazette on September 21,1993. The interested persons were thereafter served with the notices under Section 9 of the Act for determination of the compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.150/- per square meter. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated August 30,1994 offered compensation to them at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq.mt. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer regarding compensation was inadequate. Therefore, they submitted applications under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to FA/5336/2006 5/9 JUDGMENT refer their case to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation payable to them. Accordingly, the reference was made to the District Court, Ahmedabad (R), were it was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.1258 of 1998. 4. On behalf of the claimants, witness Ibrahimbhai Kasambhai Ghanchi was examined at Exh.29. Over and above stating that the lands acquired were highly fertile and that the claimants were deriving substantial income from the sale of different agricultural produces, the witness produced previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Viramgam Town itself at Exh.28 and claimed that the claimants should be awarded enhanced compensation on the basis of the said previous award. It was also mentioned by him that the lands which were earlier acquired were quite near and similar in all the respects to the lands acquired in the instant case. Though this witness was cross-examined on behalf of the acquiring authorities, nothing substantial could be elicited nor the assertion made by the witness that the lands which were previously acquired from Viramgam Town were similar to the lands acquired in the instant case could be demonstrated to be untrue. FA/5336/2006 6/9 JUDGMENT 5. On behalf of the acquiring authorities Mr.M.G.Parmar, who was Special Land Acquisition Officer, was examined at Exh.31. The said witness maintained in his testimony that all the relevant factors were taken into consideration before determining the market value of the lands acquired in the instant case and,therefore, the claimants were not entitled to enhanced compensation. 6. On appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference court was of the opinion that previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Viramgam Town was a relevant piece of evidence for the purpose of determining market value of the lands acquired in the instant case. Placing reliance on the said previous award, the Reference Court has awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.60.80 Ps. per sq.mt. to the claimants by the impugned award,giving rise to the instant appeal. 7. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the documents produced for the perusal of the Court. What is relevant to notice is that the claimants never claimed enhanced FA/5336/2006 7/9 JUDGMENT compensation either on the basis of yield or on the basis of comparable sale instances. What was relied upon by the claimants was previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of this very town, which was produced at Exh.28. Exh.28 indicates that the lands of Viramgam Town were acquired for the pubic purpose of construction of Saurashtra Branch Canal under Narmada Project pursuant to publication of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Official Gazette on August 30,1992. Therein the Special Land Acquisition Officer had offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq.mt. by his award dated August 30,1994. Feeling aggrieved,the claimants had sought reference. Accordingly, the reference was made, which was registered as Land Acquisition Case No.1259 of 1998. In the said case, the claimant i.e. Vithalbhai Vihabhai Bharvad had examined himself at Exh.16, whereas no witness was examined on behalf of the acquiring authorities. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference Court by judgment and award dated October 15, 2003 awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.60.80 Ps. per sq.mt. During the course of hearing of this appeal, the learned counsels for the FA/5336/2006 8/9 JUDGMENT claimants have produced a xerox copy of order dated May 5,2005 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1102 of 2005, which indicates that the award rendered by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No.1259 of 1998 was challenged by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the said appeal and that the said appeal was dismissed. It is well settled that previous award of the Reference Court relating to a village which has attained finality can be considered to be a good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining market value of similar lands acquired subsequently from the same village. As observed earlier, the assertion made by the witness for the claimants that the lands, which were previously acquired, were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case could not be demonstrated to be untrue. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no error was committed by the Reference Court in placing reliance on the previous award of the Reference Court for the purpose of determining market value of the lands acquired in the instant case. On re-appreciation of evidence adduced before the Reference Court, this Court is of the opinion that correct findings of facts have been recorded by the FA/5336/2006 9/9 JUDGMENT Reference Court, to which well settled principles of law have been applied. The learned Assistant Government Pleader could not persuade this Court to take a view different than the one which is taken by the Reference Court on appreciation of evidence. Therefore,the appeal, which lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw decree in terms of this judgment immediately. (J.M.Panchal,J) (Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J) arg