FA/123520/2004 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1235 of 2004 To FIRST APPEAL No. 1259 of 2004 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 - Appellant(s) Versus KANUBHAI NATHABHAI PATEL & 1 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SUNIT SHAH GP with MR JK SHAH AGP for Appellant(s) : 1, MR TRILOK J PATEL for Defendant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 22/09/2008 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT 1.0. These appeals are filed by the appellant State of Gujarat under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 CPC, challenging the common judgment FA/123520/2004 2/3 JUDGMENT and awards passed by the Reference Court under Section 18 of the said Act. 2.0. The lands in question were required for construction of main canal of the Narmada Project. Hence, proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] were initiated. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 15th March, 1986 and declaration under Section 6 was published on 4th October, 1986. The Special Land Acquisition Officer on completion of all the legal formalities pronounced the award on 5th March, 1988. 2.1. The respondents being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation preferred an application to the Collector under Section 18 of the Act for making Reference to the Court for enhancement of the compensation. The learned trial Court by the aforesaid award enhanced the compensation with an additional amount of Rs.15.00 per sq.mtr. by judgment and award dated 3rd March, 2003. The Special Land Acquisition Officer being aggrieved by the said award of the learned trial Court has filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Act. 3.0. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. The learned trial Judge has relied upon the agricultural income derived from the agricultural income FA/123520/2004 3/3 JUDGMENT of the claimants for computing the amount of compensation. The said fact is established from the document produced at Exh. 18, wherein the claimant- Kanubhai Nathabhai Patel has deposed that he used to yield two crops in a year. On the said basis, the reference Court has calculated the amount of compensation. Moreover, the appellants have not produced any evidence on record to controvert the said say of claimants. Thus, the learned trial Court was justified in enhancing the impugned award. However, while discussing the evidence in para 11 of the judgment the reference Court has calculated the expenses as per the judgment. Hence, the principle and procedure adopted by the trial Court is just and proper. The appellant was not in a position to establish any error in the method adopted by the trial Court. 4.0. In view of the above, the impugned award passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper and no interference is called for by this Court. The appeals are therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/