FA/335620/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3356 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 LAQ OFFICER & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus BIHOLA RANJITSINH AMARSINH - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. None for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 04/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal at the instance of State Government under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of Civil Procedure Code is against the FA/335620/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT judgment and award dated 24th December 2004 passed by learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge (Ahmedabad Rural), at Navrangpura in Land Reference Cases No.2819/96 to 2829/96. 2. The lands in question are situated in the sim of village Kadadara, Taluka Dehgam, District Ahmedabad. The same were acquired for the purpose of Narmada Canal. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 9.6.1993 and the notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 22.4.1994. Thereafter, after following due procedure, Special Land Acquisition Officer declared his award under section 11 of the Act on 26.3.1996 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs.2.55 per square meter. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision the original claimants filed Reference under section 18 of the Act before the District Court. Learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge (Ahmedabad Rural), Dist. Navrangpura vide judgement and award dated 30.9.2005 awarded compensation at the rate of 46.30 as additional compensation. It is against the said award the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in relying upon the deposition of Tejaji Gagaji and there is no evidence on record to show that two crops were taken by farmers. According to him there is no evidence produced by the claimant about the income of the FA/335620/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT agriculturist. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowd. 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 depth and discussed the evidence in detail. Paras 11 and 12 of the award reads as under: “11. Exh. 25 is the award of reference court rendered in L.A. No.716/91. It indicates that various survey number of village Kadadara were acquired pursuant to publication of Notification Under section 4(1) of the Act in the Official Gazette on 9.11.89 for the purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. In that case the claimant had claimed enhanced compensation but the Land Acquisition Officer by his award has awarded Rs.2.10 per Square meter in award case No.9/89, 10/89 and 12/89 respectively. Being aggrieved to the said order the claimant had sought reference. The reference court has passed an award after considering the evidence on record and fixed the price of Rs.37.60 per square meter as total compensation. The notification under section 4 in L.A.R. No.716/91 was published on 9/11/89 and in present case also the notification under section 4 was published on 9/6/93. Therefore it seems that both the notification were published on the different date but for the same purpose. Furthermore the deposition of the claimant also suggest that the earlier acquired land of village Kadadara and the acquired land of present case are just adjoining to each other and there is minor distance amongst them. Now, from the record, it clearly infers that the land of village Kadadara which were previously acquired in pursuant to the publication of Notification under section 4(1) of the Act on 9/11/89 and the FA/335620/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT compensation payable was determined by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.37.60 per square meter as total compensation. While in the present case, the land of village Kadadara were acquired in pursuant to the Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 9/6/93 and therefore it seems that there is a gap of more than 3 years. The ld. Advocate for the claimant has submitted that the claimant should be given reasonable rise in price of land at the rate of 10% per annum relying on the principle laid down by the Hon'ble High Court that “when there is time lag between the Notification published under section 4(1) of the Act, the claimant should be given reasonabel rise in he price of land at the rate of 10% p.a.”, and on this point he has relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bharuch Vs. Motibhai Mohanbhai, reported in 1997 (2) GLH page 773. 12. I have gone through the above cited judgment in which Judgement the Hon'ble High Court has very clearly established that “market value of the land is determined by taking into consideration by the amount awarded in respect of the similar land acquired in adjoining village some years before than in that case increase in the amount by 10% p.a. For each year by way of appreciation” which means that if there is a time lag between the Notification, then in that case the land owners whose land is subsequently acquired are entitled to get reasonable rise in the price. Now in view of the verdict of the judgment and considering the fact that int eh present case there is a time gap of more than 3 years. In my view the present claimant are also entitled to get reasonable rise in the price. It appears from the award that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Officer is highly inadequate. Thus, looking to the locations of the acquired land, its fertility, the purpose for which the lands are acquired, the date of FA/335620/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT publication of notification under section 4 and the judgment passed by the Reference Court in other References cases of same village, and also considering the deposition of the witness, I assess the market value of the land in question at the rate of Rs.48.85 per square meter for the acquired land and as the Land Acquisition Officer has already awarded Rs.2.55 per square meter to the present claimants in respective cases and therefore, according to my opinion, the fair and just amount of Rs.46.30 per square meter as additional compensation should be awarded then it will meet the end of justice and hence I award Rs.46.30 as additional compensation.” 6. Thus, in view of the above it is clear that it is clear that the Reference Court has taken into consideration various sale instances and the price increase,etc. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case this Court is satisfied that the impugned judgment and award do not merit any interference in the appeal. The impugned judgement, taken in its overall perspective, is not assailable. I agree with the assessment of the evidence on the part of the Reference Court, the conclusions drawn therefrom and the findings of fact recorded. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar