FA/947/2008 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 947 of 2008 To FIRST APPEAL No. 950 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD ========================================= = 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 ACQ. OFFICER AND ANOTHER Versus RANCHHODBHAI CHATURBHAI ========================================= =Appearance : MS TRUSHA K PATEL, AGP, with MR SS SHAH, GP for the Appellants MR GM AMIN for the Defendant ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 02/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In the above captioned group of appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, what is challenged is the legality of common award dated 09.05.2006 passed by the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Land Acquisition Reference FA/947/2008 2/6 JUDGMENT Case Nos.69, 70, 78 and 85 of 2002. By the said award, the learned Civil Judge had awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs 68.20 ps. per Sq. Mtr., as against the claim of Rs.100/- per Sq. Mtr. made by the claimants. 2. The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Saurashtra Branch Canal, Division No.4, Gandhinagar had proposed to acquire agricultural lands of village Kadadara, Taluka Dehgam, District Ahmedabad, for the purpose of construction of canal under Narmada Project. Pursuant to that, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on 28.02.2000. Thereafter, the State Government made declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 7.8.2000. The interested persons were served with notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per Sq. Mtr. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.6/- per Sq. Mtr. 3. The claimants, seeking higher compensation, submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer their cases to the Court for the purpose of determining the just and fair compensation. Accordingly, the reference was made to the District Court, Gandhinagar, where they were registered as Land Reference Case Nos.69, 70, 78 and 85 of 2002. 4. On behalf of the claimants, one Ranchhodbhai Chaturbhai Patel was examined at Exh.26. The claimant in his deposition had referred an award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.817 of 1995. At his instance, the said award is exhibited as Exh.16. The said award is for the lands of village Kadadara, for which notification under Section 4 was published on 18.05.1990. The claimant FA/947/2008 3/6 JUDGMENT deposed that the lands acquired in the year 1990 and the lands for which the Reference Nos.69, 70, 78 and 85 of 2002 were filed, were only at a very short distance. Though the said witness was cross-examined for the learned counsel for the acquiring authorities, nothing substantial could be elicited, nor the assertions made by the witness could be demonstrated to be false. It may also be noted that claimant Ranchhodbhai Chaturbhai Patel had also filed affidavit dated 24.04.2006; wherein it is contended that the award passed in L.A.R.817 of 1995 granting compensation at the rate of Rs.37.60 per Sq.Mtr. Has been accepted by the acquiring authority and no appeal has been preferred against the said award. 5. The acquiring authorities or the appellant had not led any oral evidence and had not examined any witness in their support. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference Court was of the opinion that the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of very same village, was a relevant piece of evidence and furnished good guidance for the purpose of determining of the market value of the lands acquired in the instant case. The learned Judge noticed that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 18.05.1990 for the lands acquired earlier; whereas, in the instant case, the notification under the said Section was issued on 28.02.2000. He, thereafter, calculated the reasonable rise in the price of the lands at the rate of 10% per annum. For earlier acquisition of the lands, award at the rate of Rs.37.60 per Sq. Mtr. was passed. Considering that aspect, the Trial Judge derived a figure of Rs.74.20 per Sq. Mtr. and had ordered to pay the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.68.20 per Sq.Mtr. Over and above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquistion Officer at the rate of Rs.6/- per Sq.Mtr. 6. I have heard Ms. Trusha Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Ms Manisha Kala for Mr. Gopinath Amin, learned Counsel for the claimants. Ms. Patel submitted that FA/947/2008 4/6 JUDGMENT the claimants had not produced sale bills or purchase bills to show the expenditure incurred by the claimants for fertilizers, seeds, medicines, etc. She further contended that even apart from the above bills, no document is produced to prove that the lands in dispute were of equal fertility, potentiality and having equal facilities as compared to the lands for which L.A.R. No.817 of 1995 was passed. She had contended that the learned Trial Judge had not discussed the aspect as to how the said award was comparable. In response, Ms. Kala had submitted that as the lands of earlier reference were of the same village, it could safely be presumed that the award was comparable. 7. This Court has also considered the record and proceedings supplied by the learned counsel for the claimants which includes the documentary evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court. Having gone through the entire record, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge is absolutely just and proper. The learned Civil Judge has rightly considered the award passed in LAR Case No.817 of 1995 as the same was comparable in facts and circumstances of the present case. The said reference was for the nearly lands of the very same village having similar fertility, potentiality and facilities. It may also be noted that the said award is accepted by the acquiring authorities. 8. It may also be noted that the acquiring authority had chosen not to examine any witness on its behalf. Not only that but it has also not led any documentary evidence to show that the market price of the acquired lands were below Rs.74.20 per Sq.Mtr. It is true that the claimants could not make good their assertion that they were entitled to get the compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per Sq.Mtr. However, the record indicates that, by producing the comparable award, they could prove that they were entitled to get the compensation at the rate of Rs.74.20 per Sq.Mtr. In view of the FA/947/2008 5/6 JUDGMENT time gap between two notifications published under Section 4(1) of the Act, the claimants would be entitled to benefit of reasonable rise in prices of lands at the rate of 10% per annum. Hence, the Reference Court had rightly awarded the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.68.20 ps. per Sq.Mtr. I do not find much substance in the contentions of the learned Assistant Government Pleader. By no stretch of imagination, Rs.74.20 per Sq.Mtr. can be termed as excessive or exorbitant, when the State has compulsorily acquired the said lands against the wish of the claimants and when they have lost their livelihood. The award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer granting the compensation at the rate of Rs.6/- per Sq. Mtr. was arbitrary and atrocious and hence, the Trial Court has rightly enhanced it to the tune of Rs.74.20 per Sq. Mtr. 9. It is well settled principle of law that the previous award passed by the Reference Court relating to the lands of same village, if has attained finality, is a very good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining market value of similar lands acquired from the same village subsequently. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court did not commit any error in enhancing the compensation. The Civil Court has passed a well reasoned judgment. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Reference Court in L.A.R. Nos.69, 70, 78 and 85 of 2002. Hence, the appeals are dismissed. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the above captioned appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment immediately. The amount deposited by the appellants at the time of admission of the appeals may be disbursed to the respective claimants after verification of their identity, if not disbursed. 11. Record and proceedings, if is lying with the Registry of this Court, be sent back. FA/947/2008 6/6 JUDGMENT (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) omkar