FA/14619/1991 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 146 of 1991 To FIRST APPEAL No. 186 of 1991 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 ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus PATEL RAMJIBHAI KESHARBHAI & 8 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SUNIT SHAH G.P. WITH MS TRUSH PATEL A.G.P. for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2,2.2.1 - 9,9.2.1 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 25/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated FA/14619/1991 2/4 JUDGMENT 26.07.1990 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Land Acquisition Case Nos.342/1989 to 382/1989 whereby, the said reference cases were partly allowed. 2.0 The facts in brief are that certain pieces of land situated in Village Sabli, Taluka Idar, District Sabarkantha were proposed to be acquired by the appellant – State for the purpose of constructing a Dam under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On completion of all the legal formalities, the S.L.A.O, by award dated 21.05.1987, granted compensation @ Rs.113 per Are for irrigated land, Rs.78/- per Are for non-irrigated land and Rs.1/- per Are for kharaba land. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants preferred applications before the S.L.A.O. requesting to refer the dispute to the competent Court, which, ultimately, culminated into references before the Court below. The reference Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, partly allowed the same by enhancing the amount of compensation. Hence, these appeals. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant – State and perused the documents on record. The only contention raised by the appellant is that the reference Court ought to have deducted 50% amount towards cultivation expenses instead of 25% and granted a multiplier of 10 only instead of 20 in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner-cum-Land Acquisition Officer, Bellary v. S. T. Pompanna Setty. 4. The Court below has adopted the yield method while calculating FA/14619/1991 3/4 JUDGMENT the amount of compensation. It has come out from the cross- examination of the claimants that they incur 25% amount towards cultivation expenses. No doubt, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decision is a good law but, if we consider the facts of this case wherein, it has come out in evidence that the claimants incur 25% amount towards cultivation expenses, it would not be appropriate to deduct 50% amount towards cultivation expenses. Had no such evidence come on record, then the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision could definitely be applied to the present case but, when clear evidence is coming on record, it would not be proper to apply the principle laid down in the aforesaid case so far as the issue regarding cultivation expenses is concerned. 4. However, so far as the multiplier adopted by the reference Court is concerned, the same, in my view, is on the higher side, more particularly, in view of the discussion of the Court below in Para – 14 of the impugned judgment. Even otherwise, in view of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decision, the multiplier given is on the higher side. In my opinion, if the multiplier of 10 is given, the same would meet the ends of justice. 5. The reference Court has assessed the valuation for three crops @ Rs.42.84 per Are. After deducting 25% thereof towards cultivation expenses, the balance amount would come to Rs.32.71 per Are. By adopting a multiplier of 10 years, the market value would come at Rs.327.10 per Are. Thus, the claimants would be entitled for compensation @ Rs.327.10 per Are for irrigated land. FA/14619/1991 4/4 JUDGMENT 6. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals stand partly allowed. The claimants would be entitled for compensation @ Rs.327.10 per Are for irrigated land. The impugned award of the reference Court stands modified to the aforesaid extent. The rest part of the impugned award stands confirmed. The amount deposited by the appellant shall be permitted to be withdrawn and if the same has already been withdrawn by the original claimants, then it shall be open to the appellant to recover the same from the original claimants. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*