FA/879/2008 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 879 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 ? ====================================== SPECIAL LAND ACQ. OFFICER & ANOTHER Versus KUKABHAI HIPABHAI & OTHERS ====================================== Appearance : Ms Trusha Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant Ms Manisha Kala for Mr GM Amin for the respondents ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHAGWATI PRASAD Date : 02/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. In the above captioned appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, what is challenged is the legality of award dated FA/879/2008 2/6 JUDGMENT 18.08.2006 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.301 of 2002. By the said award, the learned Civil Judge had awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.47.70 ps. per Sq. Mtr., as against the claim of Rs.100/- per Sq. Mtr. made by the claimants. 2. The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Saurashtra Branch Canal, Division No.2/4, Bhavnagar had proposed to acquire agricultural lands of village : Chokdi, Taluka Dhandhuka, District Ahmedabad, for the purpose of construction of canal under Narmada Project. Pursuant to that, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on 27.04.2000. Thereafter, the State Government made declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 30.08.2000. The interested persons were served with notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.100/- per Sq. Mtr. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.1.80 per Sq. Mtr. 3. The claimants, seeking higher compensation, submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer their cases to the Court for the purpose of determining the just and fair compensation. Accordingly, the reference was made to the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) where they were registered as Land Reference Case Nos.301 of 2002. 4. On behalf of the claimants, one Umedsang Manubhai was examined at Exh.19. The claimant in his deposition had referred an award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.2720 of 1996. At his FA/879/2008 3/6 JUDGMENT instance, the said award is exhibited as Exh.15. The said award is for the lands of village Chokdi for which notification under Section 4 was published on 07.06.1993. The claimant deposed that the lands acquired in the year 1993 and the lands for which the Reference Nos.301 of 2002 was filed, were only at a very short distance. Though the said witness was cross-examined for the learned counsel for the acquiring authorities, nothing substantial could be elicited, nor the assertions made by the witness could be demonstrated to be false. 5. On behalf of the acquiring authorities, award at Exh. 23, measurement sheet at Exh.24, award statement at Exh.25 were produced. The appellant had not led any oral evidence and had not examined any witness in their support. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference Court was of the opinion that the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of very same village, was a relevant piece of evidence and furnished good guidance for the purpose of determining of the market value of the lands acquired in the instant case. The learned Judge noticed that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 07.06.1993 for the lands acquired earlier; whereas, in the instant case, the notification under the said Section was issued on 23.04.2000. He, thereafter, calculated the reasonable rise in the price of the lands at the rate of 10% per annum. For earlier acquisition of the lands, award at the rate of Rs.27.60/- per Sq. Mtr. was passed. Considering that aspect, the Trial Judge derived a figure of Rs.47.50/- per Sq. Mtr. 6. I have heard Ms. Trusha Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. Gopinath Amin, learned Counsel for the claimants. Ms. Patel submitted that the claimants had not produced sale bills or purchase bills to show the expenditure incurred by the FA/879/2008 4/6 JUDGMENT claimants for fertilizers, seeds, medicines, etc. She further contended that even apart from the above bills, no document is produced to prove that the lands in dispute were of equal fertility, potentiality and having equal facilities as compared to the lands for which L.A.R. No.2720 of 1996 was passed. She had contended that the learned Trial Judge had not discussed the aspect as to how the said award was comparable. In response, Mr.Amin had submitted that as the lands of earlier reference were nearby lands of the same village, it can safely be presumed that the award was comparable. Ms Patel has alternatively submitted that even if the award passed in L.A.Reference No.2720 of 1996 is taken into consideration, the same was under challenge before this Court by way of First Appeals Nos.5081 to 5092 of 2006. It is also pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court has by its order dated 18th February 2006 partly allowed the appeals and the total compensation is reduced to Rs.25/- per square meter. She has, therefore, contended that the compensation awarded in the present case should also be proportionately reduced. 7. This Court has considered the record and proceedings supplied by the learned counsel for the claimants which includes the documentary evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court. Having gone through the entire record and decision of this Court in First Appeals No.5081 of 2006 to 5092 of 2006, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge is required to be modified to the extent the comparable award is modified by the Division Bench of this Court. I further hold that the learned Civil Judge has rightly considered the award passed in LAR Case No.2720 of 1996 as the same was comparable in facts and circumstances of the present case. . The said reference was for the nearly lands of the very same village having similar fertility, potentiality and facilities. However, as the said FA/879/2008 5/6 JUDGMENT award is modified by this Court on 18th February 2006 by partly allowing First Appeals Nos.5081 to 5092 of 2006 filed by the State of Gujarat, this Court also feels to modify the award passed in LAR No.301 of 2002 to that extent. 8. I do not find much substance in the first contention of learned Assistant Government Pleader to the effect that the award passed in LAR No.2720 to 2731 of 1996 was not comparable to the present case. However, I accept her alternative submission that the award is required to be modified to the extent the award is required to be modified to the extent the award in LAR No.2720 of 1996 is modified. On calculation, it is found that the claimants are entitled to to the total compensation at the rate of Rs.42.50 per square meter. 9. I further believe that by no stretch of imagination it can said that Rs.42.50 per square meter can be termed as excessive or exorbitant when the State has compulsorily acquired the said lands against the wish of the claimants and when they have lost their livelihood. The award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer granting the compensation at the rate of Rs.1.77 per square meter was arbitrary, oppressive and atrocious and hence the trial Court has rightly held that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. 10. It is well settled principle of law that the previous award passed by the reference court relating tot he lands of same village is a very good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining market value of similar lands acquired from the same village subsequently. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Reference Court is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent. Hence, the appeals are partly allowed. FA/879/2008 6/6 JUDGMENT 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. It is declared that the claimants are entitled to get Rs.42.50 per square meter including the amount already awarded to them by the Land Acquisition Officer. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment immediately. The amount deposited by the appellants at the time of admission of the appeals may be disbursed to the respective claimants after verification of their identity, if not disbursed. 12. Office is directed to send R & P to the concerned authority. (Bhagwati Prasad, J.) *mohd