FA/2602/1993 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2602 of 1993 To FIRST APPEAL No. 2693 of 1993 For Approval and Signature: 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 ? ====================================== KOLI SHAMBHAJI NARNAJI AND OTHERS Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT ====================================== Appearance : MR BN PATEL for Appellants. MR SS SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Respondent. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 01/09/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In these appeals, the appellants have challenged judgment and award of Joint District Judge, Banskantha at Palanpur dated 29-6- FA/2602/1993 2/7 JUDGMENT 1990/30-7-1990 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.838 of 1988 and allied matters, and prayed for enhancement of awarded amount which was granted by the reference Court. 2. The facts in brief, as emerging from record, are as under: 3. The lands in question, which are of village Vasada, Taluka Deesa have been acquired by the State Government for the purpose of establishment of campus of Agricultural University at Dantiwada. For that purpose, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in Government Gazette on 18-1-1973, while Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in Government Gazette on 14- 6-1973. On receipt of notice under Section 9(3) of the Act, the claimants appeared before Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- per Acre. After considering the evidence placed before him and after following due process of law, Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 18-4- 1974 granted the amount of compensation to the claimants as follows: Jarayat Dry crop land Class IIB ....... Rs.2750/- per hectare Jarayat Dry crop land Class II-A ....... Rs.3250/- per hectare Canal irrigate land Class I-B ......... Rs.6500/- per hectare Canal irrigated land Class I-A ......... Rs.7000/- per hectare 4. Since the claimants were aggrieved by it, the claimants applied to Special Land Acquisition Officer for making reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Accordingly, references have been preferred before learned Joint District Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur. The State appeared in all reference cases and filed written statements by raising common grounds. It is averred in written statement that the reference FA/2602/1993 3/7 JUDGMENT cases are barred by limitation. It is also averred that award passed by Special Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper, which is based on the evidence produced by claimants, therefore, the same is not required to be interfered with. It is also averred that the claimants are not entitled to compensation for trees for want of such trees on the lands under acquisition. 5. After considering the evidence on record, reference Court partly allowed said reference cases and held that compensation for irrigated lands shall be Rs.5,000/- per acre and for non-irrigated lands the compensation shall be at Rs.2,500/- per acre. It is held that on said amount, the claimants will be entitled to 30% solatium, and for kharaba lands the claimants will be entitled to Rs.2,500/- and solatium at 30%. It is also held that the claimants will be entitled to fix amount of Rs.5,000/- per well and for mango tree or neem tree, amount of compensation is fixed at Rs.300/- and for other trees it is fixed at Rs.100/- per tree. Being aggrieved by said order, the appellants- claimants have preferred these appeals to enhance the amount of compensation. 6. Heard Mr.B.N.Patel, learned advocate for the appellants and learned AGP, Ms.Patel for the respondent. 7. Learned advocate, Mr.B.N.Patel appearing for the appellants submitted that considering the sale instances, situation of the place etc., reference Court was required to award full amount in favour of the claimants. He also submitted that learned Judge has not appreciated sale instances of village Kambhalmer properly and committed an error by not relying upon said sale instances as the lands in that village were sold at Rs.10,000/- per acre. He also submitted that the reference Court has committed an error while awarding compensation for well, trees and FA/2602/1993 4/7 JUDGMENT kharaba land also. He also submitted that the reference Court has committed an error by relying upon previous references. He also submitted that reference Court has committed an error in not awarding interest at the rate of 12% on market value of the land for the period commencing from the date of publication of Section 4 Notification till the date of award, i.e. 18-4-1974 or the date of taking possession of the lands in question. He, therefore, submitted that the order impugned herein is required to be modified by awarding full amount as claimed by the claimants. 8. On the other hand, learned AGP has supported the judgment of the reference Court. She has submitted that the amount granted by the reference Court is just and proper. She submitted that while passing impugned award, reference Court has considered all relevant documents and evidence on record and, therefore, the award impugned herein is not required to be interfered with by this Honourable Court. She submitted that reference Court has rightly considered award passed in earlier reference cases. She also submitted that since the situation of the land as compared to the lands of which sale instances were produced are not of the same kind, they were rightly not relied by the reference Court. In view of these submissions, she submitted that these appeals are required to be dismissed without interfering with the impugned award. 9. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also gone through the judgment of the reference Court and other relevant documents. In my view, reference Court has rightly considered the earlier award, which is in respect of the lands of same village and no interference on said point is required by this Court. So far as point regarding sale instances is concerned, since the sale instances are of other village, they were rightly not relied by reference Court while FA/2602/1993 5/7 JUDGMENT granting amount of compensation, and reference Court has rightly rejected said sale instances. So far as question regarding awarding interest at the rate of 12% is concerned, decision of Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the case of K.S.Paripoornan v. State of Kerala and Others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1012 is required to be referred, wherein the Apex Court has held in paragraphs 54 and 60 as under: “54. If sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 is construed in the light of the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act there is no escape from the conclusion that Section 23(1-A), by itself, has no application to proceedings which had commenced prior to the enactment of the amending Act and the applicability of the said provision to pending proceedings is governed exclusively by sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act. A perusal of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the amending Act shows that it divides the proceedings for acquisition of land which had commenced prior to the date of the commencement of the amending Act into two categories, proceedings which had commenced prior to April 30, 1982 and proceedings which had commenced after April 30, 1992. While clause (a) of Section 30(1) deals with proceedings which had commenced prior to April 30, 1982, clause (b) deals with proceedings which commenced after April 30, 1982. By virtue of clause (a) Section 23(1-A) has been made applicable to proceedings which had commenced prior to April 30, 1982 if no award had been made by the Collector in those proceedings before April, 30, 1982. It covers (a) proceedings which were pending before the Collector on April 30, 1982 wherein award was made after April 30, 1982 but before the date of the commencement of FA/2602/1993 6/7 JUDGMENT the amending Act, and (b) such proceedings wherein award was made by the Collector after the date of the commencement of the amending Act. Similarly Section 30(1)(b) covers (a) proceedings which had commenced after April 30, 1982 wherein award was made prior to the commencement of the amending Act, and (b) such proceedings wherein award was made after the commencement of the amending Act. It would thus appear that both the clauses[(a) and (b) ] of sub-section(1) of Section 30 cover proceedings for acquisition which were pending on the date of the commencement of the amending Act and to which the provisions of Section 23(1-A) have been made applicable by virtue of Section 30(1). If Section 23(1-A), independently of Section 30(1) is applicable to all proceedings which were pending on the date of the commencement of the amending Act clauses (a) and (b) of Section 30(1) would have been confined to proceedings which had commenced prior to the commencement of the amending Act and had concluded before such commencement because by virtue of Section 15 the provisions of Section 23(1-A) would have been applicable to proceedings pending before the Collector on the date of commencement of the amending Act. There was no need to so phrase Section 30(1) as to apply the provisions of Section 23(1-A) to proceedings which were pending before the Collector on the date of the commencement of the amending Act. This only indicates that but for the provisions contained in Section 30(1), Section 23(1-A) would not have been applicable to proceedings pending before the Collector on the date of commencement of the amending Act. FA/2602/1993 7/7 JUDGMENT Conclusion : 60. For the reasons aforementioned be concluded that in respect to acquisition proceedings initiated prior of date of commencement of the Amending Act the payment of the additional amount payable under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act will be restricted to matter referred to in clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 30 of the Amending Act. Zora Singh, (1992 (1) SCC 673) (supra) insofar as it holds that the said amount is payable in all cases where the reference was pending before the reference Court on September 24, 1984, irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Collector, does not lay down the correct law.” 10. In view of observations of the Apex Court it is clear that the claimants are not entitled to get compensation at the rate of 12% on the market value of the land. Accordingly, reference Court has rightly not awarded any amount as interest. Therefore, on the point of interest also, impugned order is not required to be interfered with. Accordingly, after considering the evidence on record, reference Court has came to just conclusion, which is not required to be interfered with. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and finding arrived at by the reference Court while passing impugned order. No other evidence is shown to me to take a contrary view. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 11. For the reasons stated herein above, the appeals deserve to be dismissed and the same are dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *malek