FA/2225/2008 1/5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2225 of 2008 To FIRST APPEAL No. 2232 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL ========================================= 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 ? ========================================= THE SPL. LAND ACQ. OFFICER & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus IBRAHIMBHAI VALIBHAI DILIP - Defendant(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR NEERAJ SONI ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. MR MM SAIYED for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL Date : 02/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These First Appeals are arising out of the judgment and award passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, FA/2225/2008 2/5 JUDGMENT Bharuch dated 16.3.2006 in Land Reference Case Nos.1151 of 2002 to 1158 of 1998. 2. The appellants had issued Notification under Section 4 on 17.5.1996 and Notification under Section 6 of of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred as "the Act"), was published on 30.5.1997. The impugned land is situated at village Zhanghar, Taluka : Bharuch of District : Bharuch. It is acquired for the public purpose namely for the construction of Canal under Narmada Yojana. It also appears that after following procedure laid down in the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation for the acquired land Rs.750/- per Are. Against which, aforesaid Land Reference Cases were preferred by the original claimants and learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Bharuch vide his order dated 16.3.2006 in Land Reference Case Nos.1151 of 2002 to 1158 of 1998, has awarded additional compensation at Rs.1820 per Are. Thus, the total compensation awarded by the trial Court is at Rs.2270 per Are. 3. It appears that total amount awarded by the trial Court is as under: Sr. No LAR No. BLOCK No. AREA. MARKET VALUE AMOUNT SOLATIUM 30% 12% PRICERICE 15 MONTHS Total 1. 1151/02 82 0-10-23 1820.00 18618 5585 2792 15338 2. 1152/02 81 0-15-35 1820.00 27937 8311 4190 23744 3. 1153/02 73 0-04-35 1820.00 7462 2238 1119 6330 4. 1154/02 72 0-03-76 1820.00 6843 2053 1026 5833 FA/2225/2008 3/5 JUDGMENT Sr. No LAR No. BLOCK No. AREA. MARKET VALUE AMOUNT SOLATIUM 30% 12% PRICERICE 15 MONTHS Total 5. 1155/02 71 0-06-90 1820.00 12558 3767 1884 10705 6. 1156/02 69 0-05-00 1820.00 9100 2730 1365 7757 7. 1157/02 83 67 0-03-40 0-06-55 1820.00 18109 5437 2716 15540 8. 1158/02 66 0-05-12 1820.00 9318 2795 1398 7943 4. From aforesaid amount of compensation, it appears that in all cases, the amount of compensation do not exceeded Rs.24,000/-. Thus, looking to the order passed by various Division Benches of this Court that if the claim involved in Land Reference Cases is less than Rs.35,000/-, generally the Court is not interfering with the order passed by the trial Court. 5. The Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.6765 of 1999 to First Appeal No.6804 of 1999 in order dated 29.3.2000, has observed in para 5 of the judgment as under : " 5. Bare reading of the schedule attached to the common judgment and award makes it abundantly clear that in all reference cases, the claim of the compensation awarded by the Reference Court do not exceed Rs.35,000/. It is the consistent practice which is followed by various Division Benches of this Court that wherein claim involved in the Land Reference Cases is less than Rs.35,000/, appeal should be dismissed on the ground that it involves petty claim. Claimants have lost their only source of livelihood i.e. their agricultural lands which were compulsorily acquired for the public purpose of Uben Irrigation Scheme. If these appeals are admitted and kept for final hearing, it would cause great hardship and financial loss to the claimants because they will have to incur expenses of engaging advocate and other miscellaneous expenses. FA/2225/2008 4/5 JUDGMENT Therefore, these appeals require to be dismissed on the ground of petty claim alone. We, however, make it clear that we have not gone into the merits or de-merits of the References filed by the claimants and this judgment will not be cited as a precedent for the similar appeals filed for the determination of the market value of the acquired lands arising from the very acquisition of Uben Irrigation Scheme." 6. It has also been held by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat V. Maganbhai Kodarbhai Suthar reported in 2006(O) GLHEL 216825, in para 13 as under : "13. In that view of the matter, the reference is required to be made to various judgments of this Court. The learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No.1117 of 2003 has observed in paragraphs nos.3 and 4 as under:- “3. It may be noted that learned single Judge of this Court as well as a Division Bench of this Court in number of matters have dismissed appeals filed by the appellant challenging the awards of the reference courts on the ground of smallness of the amount. The Division Bench of this Court (Coram: M.H. Kadri & C.K. Buch, JJ.) in First Appeal Nos.6765 of 1999 to 6804 of 1999 vide judgment dated 29.3.2000 has considered an amount of Rs.25,500/- awarded to the claimant, without considering other statutory benefits, as small amount. In the said judgment it has been observed that it is the consistent practice which is followed by various Division Benches of this Court that wherein claim involved in the Land References cases is less than Rs.35,000/-, appeal should be dismissed on the ground that it involves petty claim. 4. Applying the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment recorded in First Appeal Nos.6765 of 1999 to 6804 of 1999 to the facts of the present case, in the instant case, the original amount awarded to the respondent is Rs.11,425/- plus statutory benefits, which comes in all to Rs.16,223.50 and, therefore, this amount being a small amount, the FA/2225/2008 5/5 JUDGMENT appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of petty claim.” It is not in dispute that the additional amount for which the appeal is filed in the Court is small amount and considering the decision of this Court referred to above these appeal deserve to be dismissed." 7. In view of the aforesaid decision also, I see no reason to entertain these First Appeals as the claim is lesser then Rs.24,000/-. 8. Therefore, these appeals are required to be dismissed on the ground of petty claim alone. I, however, make it clear that I have not gone into the merits or de-merits of the References filed by the claimants and this judgment will not be cited as a precedent for the similar appeals filed for the determination of the market value of the acquired lands. 9. As a cumulative effect of aforesaid facts and judgments, these appeals are dismissed with no order as to costs. (D.N. PATEL, J.) ynvyas