FA/3736/1999 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3736 of 1999 With FIRST APPEAL No. 3737 of 1999 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 ? ========================================= = PATEL VITTHALBHAI VENIDAS THRO' LEGAL HEIRS Versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ========================================= =Appearance : MR AMIT C NANAVATI for the Appellant MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP, with MR SUNIT S SHAH, GP for Defendant No.1 RULE SERVED BY DS for Defendant(s) : 2, MR AJAY R MEHTA for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 03/07/2008 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This group of appeals arises from the common judgment and award dated 2nd February, 1998, passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Land Reference Case Nos. 1833 and 1834 of 1991. The appellants are the claimants in Land Acquisition Case No. FA/3736/1999 2/5 JUDGMENT 145 of 1987. 2. The appellants are the residents of village Deloli, Taluka and District Mehsana. The appellants are the owner of the land bearing Revenue Survey Nos. 8 and 7 admeasuring 880 and 2330 Sq.Mtrs. Situated at village Deloli, Taluka and District Mehsana. The said pieces of land were temporarily acquired under Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein referred to as “the Act”) for the drilling purpose by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited. 3. The acquiring body for such temporary acquisition by the award dated 4th September, 1987, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded annual rent of Rs.0.50 paise per Sq. Mtr. (per year). As the appellants were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, they raised dispute. The Land Acquisition Officer referred the difference as to the sufficiency of compensation to the Court for its decision under Section 35(3) of the Act. The proceedings were numbered as Land Acquisition Case No. 1833 and 1834 of 1991. Before the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, the claim was made for Rs.5/- per Sq. Mtr. Per year. The claim was based on the averment that the land was fertile land. There was facility of irrigation and the appellants relied upon various crops in three seasons. It was also relied upon the judgment delivered in L.A.R. No.1379 of 1992 though it is of the same village Deloli and for the same purpose on these averment, it was pleaded that the compensation at the rate of Rs.0.50 paise per Sq. Mtr. enhanced was inadequate and the appellants deserved to have it at the rate of Rs.5/- per Sq.Mtr. 4. The aforesaid case of the appellants was resisted by the respondents by filing written statement and they denied the averments of the appellants. According to the respondents, the rate of compensation determined by the Collector was just, fair and adequate and there was no need to enhance it. Parties led oral as FA/3736/1999 3/5 JUDGMENT well as oral documentary evidence to substantiate their respective averments. 5. On the basis of the material produced before it, the Reference Court arrived at a conclusion that the appellants proved that compensation fixed and paid to them was inadequate. The Court also held that the appellants were entitled to receive Rs.1.50 paise per Sq.Mtr. per year as additional compensation. Accordingly, the Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.2.00 per Sq.Mtr. The learned Assistant Judge has also awarded interest on the amount of enhanced compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the reference till the date of realization. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred the present appeals. 6. I have heard Mr. Amit C. Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellants, Ms. Trusha Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent No.1- State and Mr. Ajay R. Mehta, learned advocate for the respondent No.3- ONGC. 7. The contention of Mr. Amit C. Nanavati is that the Reference Court has not properly appreciated the evidence produced on behalf of the appellants and,in particular, the documentary evidence produced at Exh.13/14. It was pointed out that in Land Reference Case No.1379 of 1992 in acquisition proceedings in the same village and for the same purpose and acquired also in the same year 1987 by the ONGC, i.e. respondent No.3. In that case, Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.0.50 paise per Sq. Mtr. per year. Thereafter, the Reference Court has enhanced Rs.2.00 per Sq.Mtr. per year as an additional compensation. Accordingly, the Court awarded compensation at the rate of 2.00 per Sq.Mtr. Mr. Nanavati has submitted that the learned Judge has not taken into consideration this reliable and cogent evidence without assigning any proper FA/3736/1999 4/5 JUDGMENT reason for ignoring it even when it has remained uncontroverted. According to him, the Reference Court ought to have awarded the full amount, i.e. Rs.5/- per Sq.Mtr. He further submitted that in the same village, Rs.2.50 per Sq. Mtr. per year is awarded by the Reference Court. Therefore, it is submitted that at least same amount ought to have been granted to the appellants. 8. As against that, Mr. Ajay Mehta, learned advocate for the O.N.G.C. has submitted that the rate of compensation per Sq. Mtr. decided by the Reference Court is just and proper considering the then prevailing rent of the land. The claimants have no reason to make any grievance because periodically, the rent is voluntarily being revised upwardly by the ONGC by negotiations and the same is being accepted by them. 9. Ms Trusha Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State has more or less adopted the submissions of the ONGC. 10. On going through the judgment and award delivered by the Trial Court, it appears that the above said argument has not been dealt with. There is substance in the argument of Mr. Nanavati that same price of the land of the same village for the same purpose acquired by the respondents in LAR Case No.1379 of 1992 at Exh.13/14 ought to have been granted to the appellants. In my opinion, the Reference Court erred in not awarding the same price to the appellant. To that extent only the submissions of the appellants are accepted. 11. The contention raised by the respondents cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there must be similar treatment amongst equal. 12. In view of the above, the judgment and award dated 2.2.1998 FA/3736/1999 5/5 JUDGMENT passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Land Reference Case No.1833 and 1834 of 1991 are modified by directing that the respondents shall pay additional amount of rent at the rate of Rs.2.00 per Sq.Mtr. per year (Rs.2.50 assessed by this Court minus Rs.0.50 already awarded by SC LAO) for the period of three years commencing from the date of occupation of the land alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the additional amount for that period. 13. The result is that these appeals are partly allowed as stated hereinabove with no order as to costs. Record and proceedings be sent back. (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.) omkar