FA/17/2008 1/14 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 17 of 2008 To FIRST APPEAL No. 23 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= 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? ========================================================= GROUP GENERAL MANAGER - Appellant(s) Versus PATEL VISABHAI CHHAGANDAS & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AJAY R MEHTA for Appellant(s) : 1, MR VIMAL A PUROHIT for Defendant(s) : 1, MR SUNIT SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.R.VORA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Date : 13/02/2008 FA/17/2008 2/14 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1. All these First Appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court and they are being disposed of by this common judgment and award. 2. In all these First Appeals respective appellants – Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (O.N.G.C.) and acquiring body – original opponent No.2 has challenged the judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.IV, Mehsana dated 31.01.2007 passed in Land Reference Case Nos. 523/2004 to 529 of 2004 (main L.R.C.No.523 of 2004) by which learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said land reference cases by directing the appellants herein to pay additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.79.10 per Sq.Mtr for Jirayat / irrigated land acquired in Village – Kadi, Taluka -Kadi, District – Mehsana and further directing to pay consequential amount under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for FA/17/2008 3/14 JUDGMENT short). 3. The appellant herein – O.N.G.C. has acquired land in question of village – Kadi, Taluka – Kadi, District – Mahesana for the purpose of Sarkam No.R.S.K.-6 for which Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on 26th March, 2003 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be issued on 2nd May, 2003. Notice under Section 9 of the Act came to be served on all the individuals and all the claimants put forth claims for the compensation of Rs.500/- per sq.mts. before the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer declared award No.1193/98 dated 29.09.2003 and awarded Rs.28/- per Sq.Mts. for the acquired lands. Respondents herein – original claimants and owners of the land were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, they accepted the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under protest and filed in all seven Reference Cases before the District court and claimed compensation at Rs.500/- per Sq.Mts. under Section 18 of the Act. All the Land Reference Cases FA/17/2008 4/14 JUDGMENT were consolidated, tried and disposed of all together treating Land Acquisition Reference Case No.523 of 2004 as main case. State of Gujarat filed written statements at Exh.8 and original opponent No.2 – O.N.G.C. filed written statements vide Exh.9. The claimants also gave written arguments vide Exh.32 and original opponent No.2 – O.N.G.C. gave written arguments vide Exh.33. On behalf of the claimants one Patel Natawarlal Ambalal a resident of Village – Kadi and claimant of L.A.R.No.529 of 2003 came to be examined at Exh.14 and on behalf of opponent No.1 one Kamleshbhai Haribhai Goradiya, Dy.Collector, came to be examined vide Exh.29. Both sides produced list of documents. Original claimants produced judgment of the District Court in other references with respect to adjacent land of the same village vide Exh.23 and 24. They also produced on record one letter of Sardar Sarovar Nigam Limited vide Exh.25 to prove that aforesaid judgments produced at Exh.23 and 24 have been accepted by the Nigam as well as the State Government. The claimants have also produced copies of Village Form 7/12 vide Exh.16 to 22. Original opponent No.2 – O.N.G.C. produced sale deed vide FA/17/2008 5/14 JUDGMENT Exh.26 and 27 with respect to other lands of the same village sold in the year 2003 as sale instances. Learned Reference Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence produced on record and after considering submission made on behalf of the respective parties, partly allowed all the references by directing the respective appellants herein to pay to the original claimants / owners of the land in question additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.79.10 per Sq.Mts. for Jigrat / irrigated lands. Thus, it was ordered to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.107.10 per Sq.Mts. With solatium at 30% additional market value at 12% and interest at 9% from the date of taking possession till one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till its realisation on all these amounts. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court passed in Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 523 of 2004 to 529 of 2004, the appellant herein – original opponent No.2 – O.N.G.C. acquiring body has preferred present First Appeals. FA/17/2008 6/14 JUDGMENT 4. Mr.Ajay Mehta, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective appellants – O.N.G.C. while assailing the impugned judgment and award has vehemently submitted that Reference Court has materially erred in not considering sale deed produced by the appellants at Exh. 26 and 27 respectively, which indicates that market value of land of village – Kadi were Rs.2.80 and Rs.5.29 per Sq.Mtr. on 16.03.1993 and 17.08.1993. It is further submitted by him that Reference Court has materially erred in solely relying on the judgment and award in L.A.R.Nos.475 and 476 of 1999 without even considering other aspects such as vicinity of both the lands and whether both are comparable or not. It is submitted by him that it might be that the judgment and award in the area of L.A.R.No.475 and 476 of 1999 at Exh.24 might of the same village but merely because they are with respect to the same village that by itself is not a ground to treat as a comparable instance for determining compensation with respect to the lands in question. Similarly, Reference Court has also erred in relying upon the judgment on L.A.R.No.81 of 1999 and other allied FA/17/2008 7/14 JUDGMENT matters. It is submitted that relevant aspects and the principles while determining the market price have not been considered by the learned trial Court. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present appeals and quash and set aside the impugned judgment and award by holding that market value of the lands in question assessed at market value of Rs.28/- was fair market value considering sale instances which are best way of assessing the market value. 5. All the appeals are opposed by Mr.Vimal Purohit, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants. It is submitted that the learned Reference Court has not committed any error in relying upon the judgment and award by the Reference Court in L.R.A.No.81 of 1999 and cognate matters as well as in L.R.A.Nos.475 and 476 of 1999 whereby the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation at Rs.63/- for the lands belonging to the very village – Kadi. It is submitted that as so stated in the deposition of original claimant- Patel Natwarlal Ambalal, that land of L.R.A.Nos.475 and 476 of 1999 as well as L.R.A.No.81 of 1999 and other cognate FA/17/2008 8/14 JUDGMENT matters were just adjacent to the lands in question and they were similarly situated with respect to the fertility, crop etc. and therefore, the learned Reference Court has rightly relied upon those awards which have been accepted by the State Government and concerned acquiring body and no illegality has been committed by the learned Reference Court in relying upon those judgments and awards while assessing the market value of the lands in question. He has relied upon the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Narmada Canal Project, Mehsana & Anr. V/s. Thakor Pradhanji Sursangji reported in 2007(2) GLR 1678 whereby the learned Single Judge has held that earlier award on the case of proximate land of same village acquired under contemporaneous notification, can be relied upon while determining the market value and awarding compensation. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss all the appeals. 6. Mr.Sunit Shah, learned Government Pleader with Mr.Dipen Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader has adopted the submissions made on behalf of FA/17/2008 9/14 JUDGMENT the claimants and requested to dismiss all the appeals. 7. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. 8. The land in question which came to be acquired, were situated at village – Kadi, District – Mehsana and acquired for the purpose of drilling Sarkam No.RSK-6. Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published on 26.03.2003 and Notification under Section 6 came to be published on 02.05.2003. Land Acquisition Officer declared award on 22.09.2003 and awarded compensation determining market price at Rs.28/- per Sq.Mtrs. against the claim of original claimant at Rs.500/- per Sq.Mts. Learned Reference Court partly allowed the Reference relying upon the earlier judgment and awards of the learned Reference Court in L.A.R.No.81 of 1999 and cognate matters and L.A.R.Nos.475 and 476 of 1999 which were in the case of land of the same village – Kadi by which the learned Reference court has awarded compensation assessing market value at Rs.63/- per Sq.Mts. and accordingly awarded additional amount of FA/17/2008 10/14 JUDGMENT Rs.79/- per Sq.Mts. It is required to be noted that so far as the land with respect to L.R.A. No.81 of 1999 and other cognate matters is concerned, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 31.12.1995 and so far as the acquisition in question is concerned, Notification under Section 4 was published on 26.03.2003. It is not in dispute that the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in L.A.R. No.81 of 1999 and other matters, produced at Exh.24 are final meaning thereby same have been accepted by the Government and the acquiring body by which the market value of the property in the year 1995 was assessed at Rs.63 per Sq.Mts. To prove that lands in L.A.R.No.81 of 1999 and other matters and the lands in question were similar on all counts inclusive of fertility, crop etc., the claimants have examined one Patel Natwarlal Ambalal at Exh.14 claimant of L.A.R.No.529 of 2004 and it is specifically mentioned in the examination- in-chief for which there is no cross examination that lands with respect to L.A.R.No.81 of 1999 and the lands in question are adjacent lands and they are similarly situated qua fertility, crop etc. Aforesaid FA/17/2008 11/14 JUDGMENT aspect that the lands with respect to L.A.R.No.81 of 1999 and others are not similarly situated and/or not comparable have not been disputed by the appellants and there is no cross examination to that effect. Thus, it is proved by the claimants that the lands with respect to L.A.R.No.81 of 1999 and that of lands under acquisition are similarly situated and comparable on all counts inclusive of fertility, crop, etc. and were adjacent land of the same village. Thus, it appears that there is no dispute on the point that earlier Land Reference Case No.81 of 1999 and other allied matters as well as Land Reference Case No.475 and 476 of 1999 which are disposed by the learned Reference Court and on the basis of which present impugned awards came to be passed, not only were pertaining to the very village – Kadi but they are adjacent lands and are similarly situated qua fertility, crop etc. There is no dispute on the point that Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the said case was published on 31.12.1995 and that Notification with respect to the present acquisition came to be published on 26.03.2003. With respect to acquisition of the lands FA/17/2008 12/14 JUDGMENT for which Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1995, market value of the said land of the same village and adjacent lands has been assessed by the Reference Court at Rs.63/- per Sq.Mtr. and therefore, for the land which has been acquired in the year 2003 i.e. after a period of eight years, and when relying upon Exh.24 when the learned Reference Court has assessed market price at Rs.107.10 per Sq.Mtr. (additional amount of Rs.79.10 per Sq.Mtr.), it cannot be said that the learned Reference Court has committed any error and/or illegality and earlier award in the case of L.A.R.Nos.81 of 1999 as well as LRA Nos.475 and 476 of 1999 adjacent lands of the same village is rightly relied upon by the learned Reference Court. Now so far as the two sale deed at Exh.26 and 27 relied upon by the appellants herein are concerned, it is required to be noted that apart from the fact that except producing sale deed no further evidence is adduced. Even there is vast difference between the aforesaid two sale deeds. So far as sale deed at Exh.26 is concerned, same is dated 16.03.1993 wherein market price is mentioned at Rs.2.80 per Sq.Mtr., FA/17/2008 13/14 JUDGMENT same was with respect to 3805 Sq.Mtr. and so far as the sale deed at Exh.27 is concerned, same is dated 17.08.1993 and the market price considered is Rs.5.25 per Sq.Mtr., same is for 17,837 Sq.Mtr. Thus, between five monthly only the market price is increased from Rs.2.80 per Sq.Mtr. to Rs.5.25 per Sq.Mtr. Considering above and with respect to the adjacent land there is judgment and award by the Reference Court which has been accepted by the Government and acquiring body and when the learned Reference Court has given more weightage to the award passed by the Reference Court with respect to the adjacent lands of the same village, it cannot be said that any error is committed by the learned Reference Court while assessing market value and passing award. 9. For the reasons stated above, all the appeals fails and deserves dismissal and accordingly they are dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. [J.R.Vora,J.] [M.R.Shah,J.] FA/17/2008 14/14 JUDGMENT satish