FA/54719/1996 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 547 of 1996 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 ? ====================================================== PATEL TRIKAMLAL JIVANLAL & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT - Defendant(s) ====================================================== Appearance : MR NK MAJMUDAR for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.None for Appellant(s) : None for Petitioner No(s).: for Appellant(s) : 3, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3,3.2.4 MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP, for Defendant(s) : 1, ====================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/08/2008 FA/54719/1996 2/5 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal, at the instance of original claimants, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of Civil Procedure Code is for enhancement of the compensation awarded by learned 2nd Joint District Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference No.293, 294, 295 and 296 of of 1986. In the present case the lands bearing survey Nos.476/2, 476/3 and 476/4 are situated in the sim of Kadi Town (hereinafter referred to as the said lands). The said lands were acquired for the purpose of road.The notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 6.8.1981 and notification under section 6 was published on 29.4.1982. After following the procedure the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.10/-, Rs.11/-, 12, Rs.3 and Rs.3.25 in respect of lands survey Nos.476/2, 472/3, 5764, 135 and 136 respectively. Feeling aggrieved by the said award the claimant has preferred the aforesaid claim application before the 2nd Joint District Judge, Mehsana, who awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.90/- per square meter in LAR No.293/96 and 294/96 for the lands bearing survey nos.476/2, 476/3 and 476/4 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till realization of the amount. The Reference Court has awarded Rs.45/- per square meter in LAR No.295/96 and 296/96 for the land bearing survey Nos.135 and 136, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of notification under section 4 of the Act for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till realization. It is against the said awards the present appeals have been filed. FA/54719/1996 3/5 JUDGMENT 3. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. 4. Mr. Majmudar, learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that in spite of the document produced at mark 51/1, which is copy of the Xerox copy of the judgement of this Court, the Reference Court has not relied upon the same. He further submitted that the Reference Court has not relied upon the document Exh.24 which was of 1983. He submitted that the Reference Court has wrongly based its reasoning and the foundation on Exh31, which is a sale deed of nearby plot which was executed on19th June 1981, and the land was 131 square meter of NA land. Mr. Majumudar submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in not relying upon the judgement of this Court wherein the land is situated within the city of Kalol. He further submitted that the land of Exh.24 was of residential purpose near to the land in question and therefore the trial court ought to have relied upon the same. Mr.Majmudar submitted that the price of the said land was of Rs.131/- per square meter which ought to have been granted to the appellant. 5. Ms.Trusha Patel, learned Advocate for the respondent has submitted that the Reference Court has rightly awarded the amounts in question and justified in not relying upon the mark 15/1 since it was a Xerox copy of the judgement. Even if the said document was considered, the said acquisition was for the city at Kalol which was for commercial purpose whereas the land in question was acquired for natural resources and therefore there cannot be any comparison between the two. She further submitted that Exh.24 pertains to the acquisition after two years i.e. in 1983 and therefore the same cannot be considered. She submitted that even if the Exh.31 is made applicable, FA/54719/1996 4/5 JUDGMENT then also amount of 53% is required to be deducted towards development charges and smallness of the plot as per the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of LAO, Kammarapally village V. Nookala Rajamallu, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1031. Thus, even if 53% is deducted then the price of the land would come to approximately Rs.66/-. She therefore submitted that in view of the above, the Reference Court has already awarded higher amount and no further enhancement is required. 6. As regards the contention regarding the judgement of this Court at Mark 15/1 is concerned, even if the said decision is taken into consideration, then also the acquisition therein was for commercial purpose in Kalol City whereas in the present case the same is for natural resources and therefore the appellant cannot base any claim on the aforesaid judgement. 7. With regard to the document at Exh.24, the same is after two years of the notification 4 published in the present case. In view of various judgements on the subject such subsequent document cannot be taken into consideration and therefore there are no merits in the said contention also. 8. As regards the third contention that Rs.131/- was granted in the case of acquisition vide exh.31, it is required to be noted that in view of the judgement Apex Court, 33% is required to be deducted for development charges and 20% is required to be deducted for smallness of the plot, which comes to 53%. In that case if we calculate the amount the same could come to Rs.66/-. However, in the present case the Tribunal has awarded Rs.90/- per square meter. Moreover the Tribunal has also considered the location of th land i.e. the plot situated in the FA/54719/1996 5/5 JUDGMENT town planning area and outside the town planning area while awarding compensation. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion I am of the view that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation and the learned Advocate is not able to point anything from the record to take a different view of the matter. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the Tribunal. 10. In the premises aforesaid there are no merits in the appeal and the is accordingly dismissed. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar