FA/3069/2007 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 3069 of 2007 To FIRST APPEAL No. 3108 of 2007 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 ? ====================================== SPL.LAQ OFFICER AND ANOTHER Versus BHUPATSINH DIPSINH ====================================== Appearance : MR SS SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Appellants. MR MAHESH B BARIYA for Respondent. MR RAVINDRA P PATEL for Respondent. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 29/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged judgment FA/3069/2007 2/4 JUDGMENT and award dated 30-6-2004 of Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad in L.R.C.Nos.272 to 321/1998, whereby reference cases filed on behalf of the claimants were allowed. 2. The facts in brief, as emerging from record, are as under: 3. Lands of the claimants situated at village Kalamsar, Taluka Khambhat, District Anand were acquired for the purpose of Shalaj- Rajpur-Jahangirpura-Bajipura-Dali Road Project. For that purpose, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 20-12-1990, whereas notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 25-2-1992. After following due procedure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 21-9-1993 awarded Rs.2/- per sq.mtr. for the acquired land. Being aggrieved by aforesaid award of Special Land Acquisition Officer, claimants preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which were heard by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge (S.D.), Nadiad. After hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record by judgment and award dated 30-6- 2004, reference Court granted additional compensation of Rs.28/- per sq.mtr. for the acquired lands. Being aggrieved by it, the appellants herein have filed these appeals. 5. Heard Ms.Trusha Patel, learned AGP appearing for the appellants and learned advocate, Mr.Bariya, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 6. Learned AGP, Ms.Patel submitted that judgment of the reference Court is contrary to law and evidence on record, as the reference Court has not taken into consideration the award of Special Land Acquisition FA/3069/2007 3/4 JUDGMENT Officer in its true spirit, who has granted compensation after considering fertility of land, situation and prevalent market price. She also submitted that Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded just amount as compensation, which was not required to be interfered with by the reference Court. Therefore, she submitted that these appeals may be allowed by quashing and setting aside judgment of the reference Court. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent has support the judgment of the reference Court. He submitted that after considering the fertility of the land and evidence on record, reference Court has rightly granted the amount of compensation, which is not required to be interfered with. He also submitted that while granting additional amount of compensation, reference Court has considered award at Exh.73 passed in LAR No.100/1988, which is in relation to lands of adjacent village-Kansari, therefore also, judgment impugned herein is not required to be interfered with. In view of above submissions, he submitted that these appeals may be dismissed without interfering with the impugned order. 8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants and also gone through the judgment of reference Court and other relevant documents. While deciding reference cases filed by the claimants, reference Court has considered evidence on record. On behalf of the claimants Bhupatsinh was examined. As per his evidence, the claimants were taking four crops in one years from said lands and they were earning Rs.25,000/- to Rs.30,000/- per wigha per annum from said lands. Said evidence of Bhupatsinh is not rebutted by the respondents and no contrary evidence is produced. Not only that the reference Court has also relied upon earlier award Exh.73 passed in LAR No.110/1988. In said case notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 10- FA/3069/2007 4/4 JUDGMENT 2-1983 and the reference Court had granted Rs.34.65 ps. per sq.mtr. as amount of compensation. After considering aforesaid evidence and earlier award it is observed by reference Court that claimants would be entitled to get Rs.40/- per sq.mtr. as compensation, however, since the claimants have demanded less amount, the reference Court has awarded Rs.28/- per sq.mtr. as amount of compensation. In my view, while passing impugned order reference Court has considered all relevant aspects and after adopting yield method and earlier award has granted just amount as compensation. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and finding arrived at by the reference Court. 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. 9. 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