FA/314220/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3142 of 2008 To FIRST APPEAL No. 3156 of 2008 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 ? ========================================================= SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus DIVANSANG ABHESANGBHAI - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DR CHAUHAN, AGP, for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR AJ PATEL for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 01/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the judgement and award dated 19th October 2006 passed by the Court FA/314220/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT of learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural)District Court at Navrangpura, LAR Case Nos.324 to 338 of 2002. 2. The land of the claimant is situated in the sim of village Kalyanpur, Taluka Dholka, District Ahmedabad for the purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. The Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 22.2.2000 and the Notification under section 6 of the said Act was published on 23.5.2000. After following the due procedure the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 4.12.2001 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1.57 & Rs.2.35 per square meter in respective cases. Against the said decision the claimants filed various references under section 18 of the Act. The learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) District Court at Navrangpura by judgement and award dated 19.10.2006 awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.32.65 per square meter as additional compensation over and above the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the acquired land. It is against the said award the present appeals have been filed. 3. Mr. Chauhan, learned AGP appearing for the State has submitted that the reference court ought to have seen that the claimant has failed to prove that the compensation awarded by the special land acquisition officer is inadequate and not proper. He has FA/314220/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT submitted that the reference court erred in relying upon the judgement and award of another land in LAR No. 134/2000 of adjoining village as cited by the claimant. 4. This court has gone through the documentary evidence placed on record along with the award of the reference court. The reference court has relied upon Ex. 34 produced by the parties and after considering the evidence in detail and observed in para 12 as under: “12. Exh. 34 is the award of reference court rendered in L.A. No. 134/2000. It indicates that various survey number of Village Valthera were acquired pursuant to publication of Notification Under Section 4(1) of the Act in the Official Gazette on 24/4/1998 for the purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. In that case the claimant had claimed enhanced compensation but the Land Acquisition Officer by his award has awarded Rs. 3.00 per square meter in award case No. 20/97. Being aggrieved to the said order the claimant had sought reference. The reference court has passed an award after considering the evidence on record and fixed the price of Rs. 29.80 per square meter as total compensation.” 5. Relying upon the same Exh.34 this Court has dismissed First Appeal No.3172 of 3189 of 2000 wherein also the same Exhibit No.34 was relied upon. The said appeals came to be dismissed by this Court by order dated 1st September 2008. In fact in the present case the notification under section 4 is on a FA/314220/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT later date. In that view of the matter these appeals are required to be dismissed. 6. In view of the above, I am in complete agreement with the reasonings adopted and findings arrived at by the reference court and therefore do not see any reason for causing interference in the matters. 7. In the premises aforesaid, first appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. (K.S. JHAVERI, J.) ar