FA/2005/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 2005 of 2008 To FIRST APPEAL No. 2018 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD ====================================== 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 Versus PRAGJI TULSI THROUGH BECHU TULSI POA ====================================== Appearance : Ms Trusha Patel, AGP with Mr SS Shah, GP for the Appellant Shri V.M. Patel for the respondents ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 27/06/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In the above captioned appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Civil FA/2005/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT Procedure Code, 1908, what is challenged is the legality of award dated 30.06.2006 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.443 of 2003 to 456 of 2003. They are being disposed of by this common judgment upon joint request. 2. The common judgment rendered in the 14 compensation cases filed under Section 18 of the Act is in respect of lands of village Khapat of District Jungadh for which notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 2nd July 1987 followed by the Notification under Section 6 dated 4th December 1987. The Land Acquisition Officer on 29th March 1988 passed the award offering Rs.700/Are (Rs.0.70 per square meter) for non irrigated lands whereas Rs.1000/Are (Rs.1 per square meter) for irrigated lands. 3. The original owners of the land whose lands were acquired and who were dissatisfied with the said award filed applicants for reference to be made u/s 18 of the Act. The learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh, upon receipt of the said references, after considering the facts and circumstances and provisions of law, enhanced the compensation from Rs.700/Are to Rs.984/Are for non-agricultural lands and from Rs.1000/Are to Rs.1310/Are for irrigated lands. 4. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Reference Court, the Appellant-State has come up before this Court by filing above referred First Appeals viz. First Appeal Nos.2005 of 2008 to 2018 of 2008. 5. On perusal of the record it seems that the claimants had mainly relied upon the award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.305 of 1988 whereby the Civil Court had passed the award at the rate of Rs.9.37 per square meter for Bagayat land and Rs.7.03 per sauare meter FA/2005/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT for Jirayat land. The lands for which the said award was passed were situated near by the lands in dispute. The said lands were acquired in the year 1984; whereas the lands in dispute were acquired in the year 1987. The claimants had submitted that they were ready to accept the similar rates of compensation awarded in LAR No.305 of 1988 with 10% rise per year. It is important to note that the First appeal filed by the State of Gujarat was dismissed by this Court and hence, the said award attained finality. The learned Civil Judge has, therefore, rightly considered the said award and has rightly awarded the compensation on the basis of the said award. 6. On the other hand, the State of Gujarat had relied upon two sale deeds in which the lands were shown to have been sold for Rs.0.61 per square meter. On scrutiny, it is found that the said sale deeds are of the year 1984. The learned Civil Judge has given cogent reasons to hold that the said sale deeds did not reflect the true market price of the lands. I am in total agreement with the reasoning adopted by the learned Civil Judge. 7. After having taken into consideration the factual matrix, relevant proposition of law, the submissions made by Ms. Trusha Patel for the Appellant and Mr. Vimal Patel for the Respondents, I find no justification to interfere with the award passed by the Civil Court. The State has based its claim on sale deeds of 1984 which by no imagination can be termed to be contemporary to 1987 when the notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued. This reference cannot be relied upon in circumstances which are relevant for deciding the disputes in question. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the compensation awarded by the Civil Court can be termed as excessive or opposed to the cannons of law. In the result, FA/2005/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT the entire group of 14 First Appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own cost. 8. Office is directed to send the record and proceedings to the Trial Court at Junagadh forthwith. (Bhagwati Prasad, J.) *mohd