IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.151 OF 1999 TO FIRST APPEAL NO.167 OF 1999 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1268 OF 1999 TO 1284 OF1999 WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1059 OF 1999 TO 1068 OF 1999 with First Appeals Nos.6541 of 1998 to 6557 of 1998 and First Appeals Nos. 6560 of 1998 to 6576 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE M.H.KADRI and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- SPL.LAQ OFFICER Versus NARANBHAI MAGANBHAI PATEL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: FIRST APPEALS NOS.151 TO 167 OF 1999 with FA Nos.1268/99 to 1284/99 with FA Nos.1059/99 to 1068/99 Mr.A.D. Oza, GP, with Mr.S.S. Patel AGP for the appellants Mr.A.J. Patel with Mr. Anant S. Dave for the respondents First Appeals Nos.6541 of 1998 to 6557 of 1998 and 6560 of 1998 to 6576 of 1998 Mr.B.S. Patel for the appellants Mr.A.D. Oza,, GP, with Mr.S.S. Patel, AGP, for the respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.H.KADRI and MR.JUSTICE D.P.BUCH Date of decision: _____/04/2000 COMMON C.A.V. JUDGMENT (Per: Kadri, J.) 1. First Appeals Nos.151 of 1999 to 167 of 1999 are filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Unit No.1, Narmada Project, under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short), read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging common judgment and award dated April 30, 1998, rendered by the learned Joint District Judge, Panchmahals, at Godhra, in Land Reference Cases Nos. 56 of 1987 to 70 of 1987, 62 of 1988 and 63 of 1988. Appellants-original claimants have filed First Appeals Nos.6560 of 1998 to 6576 of 1998 against the same common judgment and award dated April 30, 1998, rendered by the learned Joint District Judge, Panchmahals, at Godhra, in Land Reference Cases Nos. 56 of 1987 to 70 of 1987; 62 of 1988 and 63 of 1988, for enhancement of compensation. 2. First Appeals Nos. 1268 of 1999 to 1284 of 1999 are filed by the the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Unit No.1, Narmada Project, under Section 54 of the Act, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging common judgment and award dated April 30, 1998, rendered by the learned Joint District Judge, Panchmahals, at Godhra, in Land Reference Cases Nos. 106 of 1988 and 139 of 1988 to 154 of 1988 . Appellants-original claimants have filed First Appeals Nos.6541 of 1998 to 6546 of 1998 against the same common judgment and award dated April 30, 1998, rendered by the learned Joint District Judge, Panchmahals, at Godhra, in Land Reference Cases Nos. 106 of 1988 and 139 of 1988 to 154 of 1988 for enhancement of compensation. 3. First Appeals Nos. 1059 of 1999 to 1068 of 1----- Unit No.1, Narmada Project, under Section 54 of the Act, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging common judgment and award dated April 30, 1998, rendered by the learned Joint District Judge, Panchmahals, at Godhra, in Land Reference Cases Nos. 129 of 1988 to 138 of 1988. A comprehensive statement showing the details of first appeals filed by the State and the original claimants, land acquisition references, award of the Land Acquisition Officer and the award of the Reference Court, is as under: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Sr. F.A.Nos. F.A.Nos. LAR No.s Claimant's No. filed filed name by by State Claimants ------------------------------------------------------- 1 2 3 4 5 -----------------------------------------------------1. 151/99 6571/98 67/87 Naranbhai Maganbhai 2. 152/99 6560/98 56/87 Heirs of deceased Vitthalbhai Govindbhai 3. 153/99 6561/98 57/87 Heirs of deceased Naginbhai Jhaverbhai 4. 154/99 6562/98 58/87 Vinodbhai Hirabhai Patel 5. 155/99 6563/98 59/87 Mahendrabhai V. Patel 6. 156/99 6564/98 60/87 Ishwarbhai R. Patel 7. 157/99 6565/98 61/87 Yashwantbhai N. Patel 8. 158/99 6566/98 62/87 Ashwinbhai V. Patel 9. 159/99 6567/98 63/87 Ramanbhai H. Patel 10. 160/99 6568/98 64/87 Ghanshyambhai B. Patel 11. 161/99 6569/98 65/87 Somabhai M. Patel 12. 162/99 6570/98 66/87 Heirs of deceased Chitalbhai M. Patel 13. 163/99 6572/98 68/87 Vipinchandra D. Patel 14. 164/99 6573/98 69/87 Muljibhai G. Patel 15. 165/99 6574/98 70/87 Chandra- kantbhai H. Patel 16. 166/99 6575/98 62/88 Rajubhai C.Patel 17. 167/99 6576/98 63/87 Rajubhai C.Patel 18. 1268/99 6541/98 106/88 Kailashben N. Patel 19. 1269/99 6542/98 139/88 Vinodbhai H. Patel 20. 1270/99 6543/98 140/88 Ambalal R. Patel 21. 1271/99 6548/98 141/88 Ramanbhai N.Patel 22. 1272/99 6556/98 142/88 Heirs of deceased Haribhai Patel 23. 1273/99 6557/98 143/88 Ambalal Bechardas 24. 1274/99 6551/98 144/88 Manibhai Ravjibhai 25. 1275/99 6550/98 145/88 Heirs of deceased Naginbhai Mathurbhai 26. 1276/99 6544/98 146/88 Ramdas Jhaverbhai 27. 1277/99 6545/98 147/88 Pratimaben Mohanbhai 28. 1278/99 6547/98 148/88 Somabhai M. Patel 29. 1279/99 6549/98 149/88 Shambhubhai Nagarbhai 30. 1280/99 6554/98 150/88 Devjibhai Govindbhai 31. 1281/99 6555/98 151/88 Desaibhai Kabhaibhai 32. 1282/99 6552/98 152/88 Bhikhubhai Ambalal 33. 1283/99 6553/98 153/88 Manubhai Ambalal 34. 1284/99 6546/98 154/88 Heirs of deceased Chunibhai Maganbhai Patel 35. 1059/99 137/88 Natwarsinh Bharatsinh 36. 1060/99 129/88 Mansinh Vejesinh Thakore heir of Vajesinh Thakore 37. 1061/99 130/88 Himmatsinh Raisinh 38. 1062/99 131/88 Ajitsinh Pratapsinh 39. 1063/99 132/88 Gajendrasinh Jawaharsinh G. Gohil 41. 1065/99 134/88 Rajendrasinh Kishoresinh 42. 1066/99 135/88 Ajitsinh Dolatsinh 43. 1067/99 136/88 Kiritsinh Bharatsinh 44. 1068/99 137/88 Balwantsinh Karansinh ----------------------------------------------------------------------- As common question of facts and law arise for our consideration, we propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common order. 3. Agricultural lands of village Bakrol, Taluka Halol, District Panchamahals, were needed for the public purpose, namely, for construction of Narmada Main Canal. Agricultural lands of village Bakrol, which are subject matter of First Appeals Nos. 151 of 1999 to 167 of 1999 and First Appeals Nos.6560 of 1998 to 6576 of 1998, came to be acquired by notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act which was published in the government gazette on August 30, 1984. After following procedure prescribed under the Act, notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published in the government gazette on May 17, 1985. The persons interested-owners of the agricultural lands of village Bakrol were served with notices under Section 9(3)(4) of the Act. The claimants of the acquired lands lodged their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation of the acquired lands at Rs.1 lakh per Hectare which is equivalent to Rs.10/- per sq.mtr. The Land Acquisition Officer, on the basis of materials placed before him, made his award on September 15, 1987, and offered compensation of the acquired lands ranging from Rs.1.00 to Rs.1.60 ps per sq.mtr. The claimants were of the opinion that, looking to the fertility, situation and development of the acquired lands, compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and, therefore, they filed written applications under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the applications to the District Court for determination of the market value of the acquired lands. The said applications were referred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the District Court which came to be numbered as Land Acquisition Cases Nos.106/88, 139/88 to 154/88. The claimants, to substantiate their claim at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.mtr for the acquired lands, examined (1)Yashwantbhai Nanubhai Patel (Exh.83), (2) Mukeshbhai Balkrishna Bhatt (Exh.85), (3) Devalben Hemantbhai (Exh.90), (4) Narendrasinh Chandrasinh (Exh.92) and (5) Dahyabhai Bechardas Dalal (Exh.101). The claimants produced documentary evidence such as sale transactions at Exh.54, 48, 52, 50, and 51, previous award of the Reference Court of the acquired lands of village Kanjari at Exh.42, wherein compensation was determined at Rs.13/per sq.mtr which was reduced by the High Court in appeal at the rate of Rs.11/- per sq.mtr. The claimants also produced copy of judgment and award of the Reference Court with respect to the lands of village Derol at Exh.41, wherein, the market price was determined at the rate of Rs.9/- per sq.mtr. which was reduced by the High Court at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq.mtr. by judgment and order at Exh.44. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court and certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court was produced at Exh.46. The claimants also produced copy of the judgment and award of the Reference Court in respect of the lands of village Ramesara at Exh.43. wherein the market price was determined at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.mtr by the Reference Court, which was reduced by the High Court at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.mtr. by judgment and order at Exh.44. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court and certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court was produced at Exh.45. 4. Similarly, the agricultural lands of village Bakrol, which are subject matter of First Appeals Nos. 1268 of 1999 to 1284 of 1999 and 6541 of 1998 to 6557 of 1998 came to be acquired by notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act which was published in the government gazette on August 30, 1984. After following procedure prescribed under the Act, notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published in the government gazette on May 17, 1985. The persons interested-owners of the agricultural lands of village Bakrol were served with notices under Section 9(3)(4) of the Act. The claimants of the acquired lands lodged their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation of the acquired lands at Rs.1 lakh per Hectare which is equivalent to Rs.10/- per sq.mtr. The Land Acquisition Officer, on the basis of materials placed before him, made his award on September 15, 1987, and offered compensation of the acquired lands ranging from Rs.1.00 to Rs.1.60 ps per sq.mtr. The claimants were of the opinion that, looking to the fertility, situation and development of the acquired lands, compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and, therefore, they filed written applications under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the applications to the District Court for determination of the market value of the acquired lands. The said applications were referred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the District Court which came to be numbered as Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 106 of 1988 and 139 of 1988 to 154 of 1988 The claimants, to substantiate their claim at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.mtr for the acquired lands, examined (1) Shambhubhai Maganbhai Patel (Exh.17), (2) Devalben Hemantbhai (Exh.47), (3) Mukeshkumar Balkrishna (Exh.49) and (4) Narendrasinh Chandrasinh (Exh.53. The claimants produced documentary evidence such as sale transactions at Exh.48, 50, 51, 52 and 54, previous award of the Reference Court of the acquired lands of village Kanjari at Exh.42, wherein compensation was determined at Rs.13/per sq.mtr which was reduced by the High Court in appeal at the rate of Rs.11/- per sq.mtr. The claimants also produced copy of judgment and award of the Reference Court with respect to the lands of village Derol at Exh.41, wherein, the market price was determined at the rate of Rs.9/- per sq.mtr. which was reduced by the High Court at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq.mtr. by judgment and order at Exh.44. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court and certified copies of the orders of the Supreme Court were produced at Exh.45 and 46. The claimants also produced copy of the judgment and award of the Reference Court in respect of the lands of village Ramesara at Exh.43 wherein the market price was determined at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.mtr by the Reference Court, which was reduced by the High Court at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.mtr. by judgment and order at mark 13/2. The appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court and certified copy of the order of the Supreme Court was produced at Exh. 45 and 46. 5. Similarly, the agricultural lands of village Bakrol, which are subject matter of First Appeals Nos. 1059 of 1999 to 1068 of 1999 came to be acquired by notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act which was published in the government gazette on June 3, 1985. 1985. After following procedure prescribed under the Act, notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published in the government gazette on November 7, 1985. The persons interested-owners of the agricultural lands of village Bakrol were served with notices under Section 9(3)(4) of the Act. The claimants of the acquired lands lodged their claim before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming compensation of the acquired lands at Rs.1 lakh per Hectare which is equivalent to Rs.10/- per sq.mtr. The Land Acquisition Officer, on the basis of materials placed before him, made his award on October 14, 1987, and offered compensation of the acquired lands ranging from Rs.1.00 to Rs.1.60 ps per sq.mtr. The claimants were of the opinion that, looking to the fertility, situation and development of the acquired lands, compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and, therefore, they filed written applications under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the applications to the District Court for determination of the market value of the acquired lands. The said applications were referred by the Land Acquisition Officer to the District Court which came to be numbered as Land Acquisition Cases Nos. 129 of 1988 to 138 of 1988. The claimants, to substantiate their claim at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.mtr for the acquired lands, examined (1) Balwantsinh Karansinh (Exh.17), Deullaben Marutbhai (Exh.40), (3) Mukeshkumar Balkrishna (Exh.42) and (4) Narendrasinh Chandrasinh (Exh.46). The claimants produced documentary evidence such as sale transactions at Exh. 51,48, 50, 51, 52 and 54. The claimants also produced copy of previous award of Reference Court, copies of judgments of High Court and Supreme Court with respect to acquired lands of adjoining villages Derol, Kanjari and Rameshara of which reference is already made in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment. 6. The Reference Court rejected sale transaction produced by the claimants with regard to surrounding agricultural lands of village Bakrol by observing that the sale transactions produced were with regard to non-agricultural lands whereas the present acquired lands were agricultural lands. The Reference Court rejected earlier awards of the acquired lands of villages Kanjari, Rameshara, Derol, on the ground that the claimants had not produced evidence to the effect that acquired lands of the above villages were identical in all respects and posseessed similar advantages as that of acquired lands of the above villages. The Reference Court, for the purpose of the determination of market value of acquired agricultural lands of village Bakrol, resorted to 'yield method'. The Reference Court, relying upon the evidence of the claimants with regard to agricultural income of the acquired lands, had determined market value of the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.7/per sq.mtr. The claimants have filed appeals for enhancement of compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.mtr. The State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment and award of the Reference Court determining market value of acquired lands at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq.mtr on the ground that compensation awarded by the Reference Court is excessive and, looking to the situation and fertility of acquired lands, the claimants were not entitled to compensation of the acquired lands of village Bakrol at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq.mtr. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that, as per the settled legal principle, earlier awards of acquired lands of nearby villages were relevant for the purpose of determination of compensation of the present acquired lands, and the Reference Court had erred in not placing reliance on earlier award which had become final because the determination of market value was confirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. It is contended by learned counsel for the claimants that village Kanjari, Bakrol, Rameshara were situated in the near vicinity of the acquired lands and, therefore, compensation of the acquired lands cliamed by the claimants at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.mtr. was most reasonable. It is contended by learned counsel for the claimants that the situation, fertility and potential of the agricultural lands of village Bakrol were in all respects comparable to the acquired lands of the surrounding villages. It was further contended that the witnesses examined by the claimants had deposed about the fertility and situation of the acquired lands which indicated that the present acquired lands were having same fertility as compared with other acquired lands of the surrounding villages. Learned counsel for the claimants urged that, when the evidence in the nature of sale transaction and earlier awards was availble before the Reference Court, the Reference Court seriously erred in not accepting the said evidence and resorted to 'yield method' which was not permissible in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. V.P. Veerabhadarappa, reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 774. It is urged that 'yield method' can only be resorted to for determination of market value of acquired lands if no other evidence was available before the Court. Learned counsel for the claimaants therefore urged that compensation claimed by the claiants at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.mtr. was most reasonable looking to the fertility, situation and development which had taken place surrounding the acquired lands and, therefore, the appeals filed by the claimants be allowed. 8. Mr. A.D. Oza, learned Government Pleader, assisted by Mr.S.S. Patel, submitted that previous awards of the Reference Court rendered in respect of agricultural lands of surrounding villages in question are neither comparable nor relevant for the purpose of determining market value of the lands acquired in the present appeals. It was claimed that though no cogent evidence was led by the claimants with regard to agricultural income, yet the Reference Court had awarded Rs.7/- per sq.mtr as compensation of the acquired lands by resorting to guess work and conjectures which was not permissible. Learned counsel for the Government submitted that the market value determined for acquired agricultural lands of village Bakrol at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq.mtr was excessive and unreasonable and, therefore, appeals filed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, be allowed. 9 We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. We have also taken into consideration relevant documents as well as oral evidence produced by learned counsel for the parties for our perusal and the record and proceedings of the Reference Court at the time of hearing of this group of appeals. 10. Oral evidence of witnesses of the claimants, who were examined before the Reference Court, indicates that village Bakrol was connected by road with other villages and towns of Panchmahals and Vadodara districts. Mumbai-Delhi broad-guage railway line is at a distance of 1 km from the acquired lands. The evidence of witnesses also shows that many industrial activities had taken place surrounding acquired lands. Witness Baghubhai Maganbhai, Exh.17, deposed that about 400 to 500 factories were established surrounding the acquired lands of village Bakrol. Village Bakrol was having facilities of telephone, hospitals, schools, milk producers' federation, cooperative societies, etc. It was also proved by the claimants that the agricultural lands were having facilities of irrigation through wells and pipelines. The witness deposed that agricultural lands of village Kanjari were adjoining to the acquired lands of village Bakrol and, according to the witnesses, the said acquired lands of village Kanjari were having same fertility and similar agricultural crops were raised on both the acquired lands. The witness further deposed that the acquired lands of village Derol were at a distance of 1.1/2 kms from the present acquired lands. The Reference Court had determined market value of agricultural lands of village Derol at the rate of Rs.9/per q.mtr. The witness deposed that the High Court in appeal had reduced price of acquired lands of village Derol from Rs.9/- to Rs.7/- per sq.mtr. The witness asserted that the State Government had preferred appeal in the Supreme Court which was dismissed, and determination of market value of agricultural lands of village Derol was confirmed. In cross examination, the witness admitted that village Kanjari was at a distance of 2 to 3 kms from village Bakrol. Witness, Ambalal, Exh.17, deposed that he was having agricultural lands at both the villages - Kanjari and Bakrol. The witness deposed that fertility and agricultural income of lands of villages Kanjari and Bakrol was similar and the agrigulturists raised same crops on the lands of both the villages. 11. Claimant of Land Reference Case No.61 of 1987, Yashwantbhai Nanubhai Patel, Exh.83, deposed that all the acquired lands of village Bakrol were having irrigation facilities. He also deposed that State Highway and National Highway were passing near the acquired lands and, therefore, the acquired lands were having all the transportation facilities. The witness claimed that the acquired agricultural lands of villages Kanjari, Derol and Rameshara were having same fertility as compared to agricultural lands of villabe Bakrol. 12. In our opinion, the claimants had led sufficient evidence to prove that the present acquired lands ere in all respects comparable and identical to the acquired agricultural lands of adjoining villages Kanjari, Derol, and Rameshara. In our view, the previous awards determining market value of the acquired lands of the abovereferred three villages were most comparable and relevant for the purpose of determination of market value of the present acquired lands of village Bakrol. 13. The Supreme Court in Special Land Aquisition Officer, Devangere vs. P.Veerabhadarappa, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 774, held as under: "The function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of the land at the date of the notification under Section 4(1) and the methods of valuation may be : (1) Opinion of experts: (2) The prices paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transactions of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) A number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Normally, the method of capitalising the actual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of years' purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of the market value. It can be resorted to only when no other method is available." Before the Reference Court, the claimants had produced sale deed in respect of lands of vilalge Bakrol which was duly proved by the evidence of vendor and vendee. Even if the sale deeds on which reliance was placed by the claimants for determination of market value of the present acquired lands, were not relevant, even then, there was other evidence available on record before the Reference Court in the nature of earlier awards, which could have been relied on by the Reference Court. In our opinion, in view of the principle laid down in the case of P.Veerabhadarappa (supra), when there was sufficient evidence of the nature of sale transaction and previous awards available, the Reference Court had erred in resorting to 'yield method' for the determination of market value of the acquired lands. Determination of market value of acquired lands by the Reference Court by resorting to 'yield method' is erroneous. The Reference Court, by relying upon the evidence of claimant, Jastwantbhai Nanubhai Patel, had observed that, as per his evidence, agriculturists of the acquired lands were earning Rs.14,000/- per year from one acre of land. However, as the witness had not produced any account books for income and expenditure of his agricultural land, the Reference Court arrived at figure of Rs.2832/as net income per one acre of the acquired lands without there being any base. The Reference Court had