FA/1122/1987 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1122 of 1987 To FIRST APPEAL No. 1125 of 1987 With FIRST APPEAL No. 335 of 1987 To FIRST APPEAL No. 338 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K S 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 ? ========================================================= CHIMANLAL BABUBHAI MEHTA & 6 - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : FIRST APPEAL NO. 1122/1987 TO 1125/1987 : MR PRAKASH K JANI for Appellant(s) : 1 - 7. MR SUNIT SHAT / MS MINI NAIR - GP / AGP for Defendant(s) : 1, MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Defendant(s) : 2. FIRST APPEAL NO. 335/1987 TO 338/1987 : MR MEHUL SHARAD SHAH for Appellant(s) : 1. MR SUNIT SHAT / MS MINI NAIR - GP / AGP for Defendant(s) : 8. FA/1122/1987 2/4 JUDGMENT MR PRAKASH K JANI for Defendant(s) : 1 - 7. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 12/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These Appeals are directed against the common judgment and award passed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in L.A.R. Nos. 180/1983 to 183/1983 dated 01.07.1986 whereby, the said References were partly allowed. 2.0 The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are as under; 2.1 The respondent - Government initiated necessary procedure for the acquisition of the lands belonging to the appellants, original claimants, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the objections filed by the appellants, passed an award to the effect that the appellants were entitled to get an amount of Rs.105/- per sq. metre as compensation for the lands acquired. 2.2 Being aggrieved by the said award, the appellants preferred applications before the FA/1122/1987 3/4 JUDGMENT Special Land Acquisition Officer requesting to make References to the Court concerned on the ground that the amount of compensation awarded to them was inadequate. Consequently, the matter was referred to the Court below for adjudication. 2.3 In the said References, the respondent – Government filed its objections. The Court below framed the issues. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the Court below partly allowed the claim petitions by awarding an amount of Rs.1,13,962.50, 34,554.20, 47,239.75 and 10,922.30 respectively. Being aggrieved by the said award, the original claimants have approached this Court by way of these Appeals. 3. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Before the Court below, two independent witnesses were examined at Exhibits – 36 & 38. They had produced two sale instances vide Exhibits – 37 & 39 dated 31.05.1971 and 20.01.1961 respectively. From the document at Exhibit – 39, it is evident that a land admeasuring 168 sq. metres was sold for Rs.5,000/- while from the document at Exhibit - 37, it appears that a land admeasuring 84 sq. metres was sold for Rs.4,500/-. Thus, from the sale instance at Exhibit – 37 dated 31.05.1971, FA/1122/1987 4/4 JUDGMENT it is clear that the market price of the acquired land would be Rs.567/- per sq. metre. 4. The Notification u/s. 4 of the L.A. Act in respect of the lands in question was published in the year 1976. It appears from the record that the appellants had not produced any sale instances for the year 1976, i.e. when the proceedings in question were initiated, to substantiate their case. 5. Considering the evidence on record, I am of the view that the price of Rs.550/- per sq. metre arrived at by the Court below is just and reasonable and the Court below was completely justified in partly allowing the References. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in these Appeals. 6. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*