FA/1683/1987 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1683 of 1987 To FIRST APPEAL NO.1690 OF 1987 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1203 of 1987 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1204 of 1987 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1205 of 1987 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 ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus PUNJA HARDAS - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MINI NAIR, APP, for State MR DHIRENDRA MEHTA for MR PV HATHI for respondents ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 24/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT FA/1683/1987 2/4 JUDGMENT 1. By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the awards passed by the Reference Court in various references. 2. Learned AGP appearing for the State has mainly contended that the Court below has relied upon the sale instance without examining the executor of documents, purchaser or seller and that the Reference Court has therefore committed an error in relying upon those documents. 3. Learned AGP has further contended that the amount awarded is excess and there is nothing on record to show that the market value of the acquired land on the date of acquisition is Rs. 100/- per Are for Jirayat land, Rs. 150/- per Are for Bagayat land and Rs.10,000/- for the well. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the original claimants has contended that the sale instances are that of prior to section 4 notification and the Reference court has on that basis only awarded the compensation which is just and proper and does not call for any interference. He has submitted that the cost of the well was Rs. 10,000/- at the relevant time. FA/1683/1987 3/4 JUDGMENT 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record more particularly Exs. 70, 80, 28 and 29. These documents clearly establish that the documents are exhibited and may be that the seller or purchaser were not examined. However, it was a registered sale deed and the same was exhibited and relied upon. In that view of the matter in my opinion in view of the recent decision of the Apex Court wherein it is held that the documents which are registered can be relied upon. In that view of the matter, the said contention of the advocate for the State would not survive. 6. As far as the cost of the well is concerned, two witnesses are examined in this regard. The witness Shri Narendra examined vide Ex. 28 and Shri Mangaldas Ex. 27 also support the say of the learned counsel for the original claimants that the cost of the well was RS. 10,000/- at the relevant time. The trial court has gone into the evidence in detail and has passed the award which is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. 7. No other contention is raised. FA/1683/1987 4/4 JUDGMENT 8. In the premises aforesaid, these appeals are dismissed accordingly. (K.S. JHAVERI, J.) ar