FA/1208/1987 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1208 of 1987 To FIRST APPEAL NO.1230 OF 1987 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 ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus SATWARA VASTA MALA - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS MINI NAIR, APP, for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 24/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The above appeals are directed against the common judgement and award dated 17th September 1986 passed by FA/1208/1987 2/3 JUDGMENT learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot at Morvi in Land Acquisition Case Nos.251 to 273 of 1982, whereby the learned Judge has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per square meter over and above the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants. 2. The lands in question were acquired for the purpose of Morvi Bypass road. Sections 4 and 6 Notifications were published on various dates and the rate was fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Feeling that the said compensation is inadequate, the land owners filed the aforesaid reference which came to be allowed as stated hereinbove. 3. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that the amount award by the Land acquisition Officer was accepted by the claimants without any protest and therefore the Tribunal has committed an error in entertaining the References. This issue has been discussed in para 10 of the award (page 9). The Tribunal held that there is nothing on record to show that when the amount of compensation was received by the claimants, they have not protested, that even oral protest is sufficient while receiving the compensation paid to them and therefore it must be held that they have orally protested while accepting the compensation. I agree with this finding of the Tribunal and do not find any merits in the aforesaid contention. 4. The second contention raised on behalf of the appellant is with regard to the rate fixed by the FA/1208/1987 3/3 JUDGMENT Tribunal. This aspect has been discussed elaborately and after discussion in paragaphs 10 to 13, and after considering the Exh.21 and after considering various other documents at Exhs.24, 46, etc. tribunal has rightly fixed the rate of Rs.10/- per square meter over and above the amount of compensation awarded to them. The Tribunal has also considered the proximity of petrol pump, highway, canal from dam, etc. The tribunal has also considered various sale instances which are comparable with the land. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the judgement and awards passed by the Tribunal and no interference is warranted in these appeals. These appeals are therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI,J.] ar