FA/257/2007 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 257 of 2007 To FIRST APPEAL No. 258 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?-No. 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 ?-No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?-No. ========================================================= SPL.LAQ OFFICER - Appellant(s) Versus CHHOTABHAI MANIBHAI & 3 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR JK SHAH, AGP for Appellant(s) : 1, MR KM SHETH for Defendant(s) : 1 to 4. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 29/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of these appeals, the appellant – State has challenged the judgment and award of the Reference Court dated 16/7/2004 in FA/257/2007 2/5 JUDGMENT L.A. Case Nos.639 and 640 of 1998, whereby compensation of Rs.25.30 per sq. mtr. was granted over and above the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 2. The brief facts, as emerging from record, are as under:- 2.1 The lands of the original claimants situated at village Hathijan, Tal.: Dahegam, Dist.: Gandhinagar was acquired for the purpose of construction of canals under Narmada Canal Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 31/3/1993 whereas Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 12/5/1994. After following due procedure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 17/3/1997 awarded compensation @ Rs.3.75 per sq. mtr. for irrigated land as against the claim of Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. made by the claimant. 2.2 Being aggrieved by aforesaid award of Special Land Acquisition Officer, the original claimants preferred References under Section 18 of the Act. The said References were heard by the learned 4th Extra Assistant Judge & Special Judge (L.A.R.), Ahmedabad (Rural), who vide his judgment and award dated 16/7/2004 was pleased to award compensation @ Rs.25.30 per sq. mtr., over and above the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired land. Being aggrieved by it, the appellants herein have filed these appeals. FA/257/2007 3/5 JUDGMENT 3. Heard Mr.J.K.Shah, learned AGP appearing for the appellants. 4. Learned AGP Mr.J.K.Shah submitted that Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted Rs.3.75 per sq. mtr. Inspite of that, the Reference Court has granted Rs.25.30 per sq. mtr. as additional compensation and thereby a mistake is committed by the Reference Court while passing impugned award. 5. In the present case, Section 4 notification was published on 31/3/1993 and there is a gap of 1 year and six months and therefore, the claimants are entitled to increase of 15%. He invited attention of the Court to paragraph No.7 of the impugned award, which read as under:- “7. Both these land reference are consolidated. Both the parties have given documentary and oral evidence. One farmer namely Hirabhai Manibhai examined at exh.18. He has deposed that “I am applicant in L.A.R. No.640/98. My land bearing survey No.548 admeasuring 1521 sq. meter acquired for the purpose of Narmada Canal. All other lands are situated nearby each other. All having Irrigation Facility and common level. I am giving evidence on behalf of other claimants. We had taken objection before Special Land Acquisition Officer. We had requested to award Rs.50/-. Our population is 10,000. There are Milk society, Co-operative society, Post Office and such other facilities available in our village. There are concrete Road connecting with other villages and Highway. We are using hybread seeds and fertilizers.” We are framing by scientific method and such other facts are stated in previous group L.A.R. No.54283/94, FA/257/2007 4/5 JUDGMENT this court has awarded Rs.25.30 ps. by judgment dated 31/1/2002. Learned D.G.P. Conducted cross examination. He has tried to extort his favourable answers but there is nothing stated by this witness which can negative the facts regarding the potentiality of the land. Cross examination was also conducted by Mr. J. K.Modi on behalf of opponent no.2. I have perused all the documentary evidence and previous award and judgment of Special Court in LAR No.172/94 in which Court had awarded Rs.25.30 for the land of the same village. Opponent No.2 had filed written statement and has examined one witness Mr. S.S.Zafar Exh.25. He has stated that the amount by Special L. A. Officer was rightly awarded in his cross. He has admitted that the all proceeding was conducted prior to his taking over of charge. Not it is well settled that the 10% appreciation has to be given, there are judgments to that effect reported in AIR 2001 SC 3516 and judgment reported in 1998 (1) GLR page 130 is also material. As per judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat appreciation in the price of land at rate of 10% has to be given. As per these judgment the award of L.A.R. Court in previous case is the guide, there is no much difference between two notifications as the present land is also of same village. So in my view claimants are entitled to Rs.25.30 per sq. meter which is awarded in previous case, opponent side could not established whether previous award was modified by Appellate Court.” 6. The learned AGP submitted that in the present case, the Reference Court has awarded additional amount of Rs.25.30 over and above the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and amount awarded by earlier award of Rs.25.30 and as per increase of 15% even if increase of Rs.3.79 is given, the total FA/257/2007 5/5 JUDGMENT amount that can be awarded for irrigated lands comes to Rs.29.09. However, in the present case, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.25.30 as additional amount of compensation. 7. In my view there is small difference between two notifications and therefore there is litter difference in the amount of compensation. In my view therefore,, the Reference Court has rightly awarded the amount of compensation and therefore, no interference is required to be called for. Therefore, present appeals deserve to be dismissed. The same are therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)