FA/786/1983 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 786 of 1983 With FIRST APPEAL No. 787 of 1983 With CROSS OBJECTION (STAMP) No.12016 of 1983 In FIRST APPEAL No. 786 of 1983 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 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 ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 - Appellant(s) Versus MERUBHA PRABHATSANG - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2. MR MANOJ N POPAT for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 16/05/2008 FA/786/1983 2/8 JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of these appeals, the appellants-State of Gujarat, original opponents have challenged the common judgment and order dated 30/9/1982 passed by the Assistant Judge, Jamnagar in Land Reference Case Nos.24 to 26 of 1981 whereby the learned Judge has awarded an additional amount of compensation of Rs.54,708.62 in the Land Reference Case No.24 of 1981 and Rs.4,600/-, in both with 15% solatium thereon. Applicants of Land Reference Case No.24 of 1981 and Land Reference Case No.25 of 1981 are respondents in these appeals. 2. The facts in brief leading rise to filing of these appeals are as under: 2.1) Notification for acquisition of the lands situated in the sim of village Dangra of Dhrol Taluka under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) came to be published on 10/10/74. Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 7/6/1976 by the Land Acquisition Officer. After following necessary procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation of Rs.1,400/- per hectare for jirayat Land and Rs.5,000/- per hectare for Bagayat Land. FA/786/1983 3/8 JUDGMENT 2.2) Being aggrieved by the said award given by the Land Acquisition Officer on 5/12/1980, the claimants requested him to make a reference under Section 18 of the Act to the Competent Court. The Land Acquisition Officer accordingly has made these reference to the Competent Court. The trial Court framed issues and after completion of the pleadings, the Assistant Judge at Jamnagar has awarded the additional amount of compensation as stated above. Hence, these appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. The trial Court has passed the impugned award on the basis of the evidence on record more particularly the Evaluation Report. In para-12 and para-13 of the judgment, the trial Court has discussed other aspects of the matter in detail on the basis of the evidence on record. Para-12 and para-13 of the impugned judgment reads as under: “12. Now, let us see whether there exists any transaction of sale of such land which is comparable from the view point of time of publication of notification under Section 4 of the Act. The photo copies of sale deeds dated 18/1/77 and 5/4/76 of lands of Visaman village of Padadhari Taluka FA/786/1983 4/8 JUDGMENT have been produced at mark 18/1 and 18/2. In my opinion, these sale instances cannot be taken into consideration for two reasons, (1) the execution of these sale deeds have not been proved, and (2) these sale instances are post notification instances of sale. It is an admitted as well as established fact that the acquired lands are situated adjoining the developed lands of Visaman village of Padadhari taluka of Rajkot district. In his award Exh.3, the Land Acquisition Officer has stated that these lands were situated adjoining the developed lands of Visaman village and they were at a distance of ¼ k.m. From both villages, that is ¼ k.m. From Visaman village as well as ¼ k.m. From Dangra village. Para 5 of his award also speaks that the lands acquired were of a good quality and fertile lands. For determination of the market value we can refer to and rely on the statement Exh.32 produced by the Talati showing the sale instances. Exh.32 is, thus, a document coming from the custody of the opponent and the claimants can certainly rely on it for determination of market value. Now, if we refer to this statement Exh.32, we find a sale instance of sale of S. No.75 and 76 on 14/6/74 for Rs.4,000/-. This sale instance shows that 4 acres of land of S. Nos.75 and 76 was sold for Rs.4,000/- on 14/6/74. This shows that the market value of jirayat FA/786/1983 5/8 JUDGMENT land was Rs.2,500/- per hectare on or about 14/6/74. Exh.33 is a statement showing the sale instances of the lands of Visaman village. As said earlier, the suit lands are situated near the lands of Visaman village and thence the sale instances of the lands of Visaman village can be taken into consideration for determination of market value. If we refer to this Exh.33, we find that the nearest relevant sale instances of the sale is of S. Nos.141 and 187 for Rs.18,000/- on 3/12/73. This shows that on or about 3/12/73 the market value of jirayat land was Rs.5,500/- per hectare. Taking these sale instances into consideration, we can determine the market value of jirayat land at Rs.3,500/- per hectare. The nearest and comparable sale instances of sale of S. Nos.450 of Visaman village on 8/7/74 would shows that the market rate of bagayat land was Rs.9,350/- per hectare at a relevant time. We, therefore, can determine the compensation at Rs.9,000/- per hectare taking it as a market value for bagayat land. The compensation, therefore, for acquired land requires to be determined at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per hectare for jirayat land and Rs.9,000/- per hectare for bagayat land. 13. It is evident from award Exh.3 that 2 hectare 63 ARE 05 Sq. Mt. jirayat land of S. No.3 has been acquired. The FA/786/1983 6/8 JUDGMENT claimant in 24/81, therefore, would be entitled to compensation of Rs.9,206.75 for land of S. No.3 at Rs.3,500/- per hectare. 9 hectare 86 ARE 32 sq. mt. jirayat land of S. No.4 has been acquired. The claimant in 24/81, therefore, would be entitled to Rs.34,520.20 fro the said land. 3 hectare 23 ARE 75 sq. mt. bagayat land of S. No.4 has been acquired. He, therefore, would be entitled to Rs.29,137.50 for bagayat land of S. No.4 at Rs.9,000/- per hectare. 0 hectare 49 ARE 57 sq. mt. jirayat land of S. No.5 has been acquired. At the rate of 3,500/- per hectare he would, therefore, be entitled to Rs.1,734.95. Thus, claimant in 24/81 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.74,599.40 for the lands. Whereas, he has been awarded Rs.35,950.78 for the lands only. He is, thus, entitled to additional compensation of Rs.38,648.62 for the lands. Compensation of Rs.2,100/- has been awarded to him for machine room and trees standing on the land acquired. Exh.30 is a valuation report of the well and machine room prepared by the Executive Engineer. As per this valuation report of the Executive Engineer himself, the value of well and machine room is S. No.4 was Rs.14,160/-. The claimant in 24/81 is, therefore, entitled to compensation of Rs.14,160/- for a well and machine room as per report Exh.30. Exh.31 is a panchnama prepared by the FA/786/1983 7/8 JUDGMENT Mamlatdar of Darol on 5/1/78. This panchnama shows that there were about 39 trees standing on S. No.4. This panchnama shows that most of these trees were fruit bearing trees. There were trees of mangoes, Jamfali, Dadam, Gunda etc. The trees were sufficiently grown up and were bearing fruits. Even if we award Rs.100/- for each tree, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.3,900/- to Rs.4,000/-. I, therefore, would award Rs.4,000/- to him for the trees standing on S. No.4. Thus, the claimant in 24/81 is entitled to compensation of Rs.18,100/- for well machine room and trees. Whereas, he has been awarded compensation of Rs.2,100/- by the Land Acquisition Officer. He is, therefore, entitled to additional compensation of Rs.16,060/- for well etc. In all, thus, he is entitled to additional compensation of Rs.54,708.62 with 15% solatium thereon.” 4. Considering the facts of the case, I am of the view the the trial Court has rightly awarded the amount of compensation. In my view, the amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court is just and proper which requires to be approved. I am in complete agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. No case is made out to interfere. Hence, both appeals deserve to be dismissed. FA/786/1983 8/8 JUDGMENT 5. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. 6. As both the appeals are dismissed, Cross Objection (Stamp) No.12016 of 1983 in First Appeal No.786 of 1983 does not survive. Hence, Cross Objection (Stamp) No.12016 of 1983 in First Appeal No.786 of 1983 is also disposed of. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)