FA/1523/1983 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1523 of 1983 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 ? ====================================== BACHUBHAI RAMCHANDBHAI Versus COLLECTOR ====================================== Appearance : MR AJ PANDYA for Appellant Nos.1, 1.2.1, 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 1.2.5, 1.2.6,1.2.7 MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Respondent. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 04/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged judgment of learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana dated 31-8-1980 passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.64 of 1979, whereby the Reference was partly allowed. FA/1523/1983 2/6 JUDGMENT 2. The facts in brief, as emerging from record, are as under: 3. Proceeding under LAQ Case No.6/73 for acquisition of land bearing Survey No.52 admeasuring 1 A. and 32 Gunthas situated in Sidhpur town was started by the Government at the request of Chairman, Agricultural Produce Market Committee for extension of market yard. Notification dated 14-5-1976 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 22-7-1976 in Gujarat Government Gazette. While notification dated 30-5-1977 under Section 6 of the Act was published in Gujarat Government Gazette on 2-6-1977. Notices under Sections 6 and 9 were published and served upon the persons interested in the land. After hearing the parties, Deputy Collector, Patan passed an award on 20-7-1979 and compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.550/- per Are. Being aggrieved by it, the claimants made an application under Section 18 of the Act to Deputy Collector, Patan for making Reference to the Court. Accordingly, reference was made in the Court of learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana for award of excess amount of Rs.1,74,267.25 ps. inclusive of compensation for well and trees and also the amount of solatium. On behalf of the opponent, objections were raised against such Reference and it was urged that the amount of compensation awarded for the land, well and tress is adequate and prayer for dismissal of the Reference was made. 4. After considering the evidence on record trial Court allowed said reference partly and directed the opponent to deposit in all Rs.49,806.10 ps. as excess compensation for the acquired land inclusive of 15% solatium. Being aggrieved by it, the appellants have filed this appeal. 5. Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. FA/1523/1983 3/6 JUDGMENT 6. Learned advocate, Mr.Pandya, appearing for the appellant submitted that the land in question is in greater proximity of the ST stand than Agricultural Produce Market and it is also near to Sidhpur Railway Station. He also submitted that the land in question is far superior than land in question in Land Acquisition Reference No.22 of 1977. 7. On the other hand, learned AGP, supported the judgment of the lower Court and submitted that the findings arrived at by the lower Court are just and proper and the same may not be disturbed while entertaining this appeal. 8. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also gone through the judgment of the trial Court and other relevant documents. Considering the issues framed below Exh.14, and after considering the evidence on record, trial Court has found as under in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned award: “12. I have referred to as above the topography of the various Survey numbers as the same have been referred to in the Award exh.33, which has been relied upon by the claimants in support of the claim for enhanced compensation. It cannot be disputed that Award as passed by the Court in L.A.R.Case is a comparable sale instance. Now the lands involved in award exh.21 admeasures 70 Are and 82 Sq.Mts. of S.N.56 (p) of Sidhpur and therein the Assistant Collector, Patan had as per his Award dtd.18-7-77 in LAQ No.8/75 fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.650/- per Are and the said land was acquired for the extention of the market yard. As pointed out earluer there is only one field in between S.No.52 namely acquirrd land and S.No.56 the prive of which was FA/1523/1983 4/6 JUDGMENT fixed vide exh.33 at the rate of Rs.1200/- per are. Wherein the L.A.Q. Had awarded Rs.650/- per Are. The Notification u/s 4 in that case was dtd. 23-6-77 while in our case the same is dtd. 14-5- 76 which was published on 22-7-76. In Award exh.33 vide para- 33 the sale instance in respect of the land of S.No.47 and 49 (p) was considered. Now as pointed out earlier S.No.47 is to the north of and adjacent to the acquired land S.No.52, While S.No.49 is to the west of S.No.52 and there are lands bearing S.Nos.50, 50/1 and 51 in between them. So as regards locality they are comparable. As regards the relevant date namely the date of Notification u/s 4 of the Act the period also can be said to be comparable it being of the period of about one year. The said transaction is dated 24-9-75 for Rs.4000/- in respect of the land admeasuring 64500 Sq.Ft. Vide para-34 while appreciating the evidence of Vithalbhai Laljibhai one of the purchasers of the said sale instance it has been observed that the witness states that within last 10 years the price of the land has increased in Sidhpur. The area surrounded by the market yard is developed. Moreover as per para-35 the said transaction which is of the year 1975 has been accepted as a comparable transaction because the Notification u/s 4 in that case was published on 5-8-76. Even at the cost of repeatation it can be observed at this stage that the Notification u/s 4 in our case is dtd.14-5-76. Thus Award exh.33 is a comparable instance on the aspect of time as well. Considering the potentiality and other factors the market value of the land of S.No.56 (p) has been fixed at the rate of Rs.1200/- per Are. It is pertinent to note that lands bearing S.No.52 involved in our case is better situated with higher potentiality as compared to land S.No.56 of Award exh.33 as it is more nearer to the market yard and S.T.Stand. In view of all these considerations I feel it FA/1523/1983 5/6 JUDGMENT justified to accept award exh.33 wherein the price has been fixed at the rate of Rs.1200/- as a good comparable sale instance and accordingly I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the Award as made by the L.A.Q. at the rate of Rs.550/- per Are is highly inadequate and the just and fair compensation that can be awarded to the claimants can be at the rate of Rs.1200/-. per Are and the same will equally meet with the ends of justice. In respect of the claim for well and trees except the bare word on the part of the applicant Bachubhai nothing tangible has been pointed out by learned Advocate Shri S.P.Shah that the amount as awarded by the L.A.Q. on that count is adequate. On the other hand it is urged on behalf of the opponent by learned Advocate Shri Parikh that the panchnama exh.25 supports the amount of compensation as awarded by the L.A.Q. it being quite just and adequate. It is further urged that as the claimant has not preferred claim for enhanced compensation within the statutory period before the L.A.Q. the claimants are not entitled to persue the said claim before the Court. Admittedly no such claim has been preferred before the L.A.Q. and it has been stated that nosuch claim has been preferred under the belief that one can get enhanced compensation, in respect of the lands only. In view of all these considerations in respect of the well, trees and on such other counts, in the absence of any material on record, I do not see any reason to allow any enhanced compensation on this count. Accordingly, the same stands rejected. (13) In view of the above discussion as a while I find that the market value of the acquired land should be fixed at Rs.1200/- per Are on the date of Notification u/s 4 namely 14-5-1976. Thus calculating at the rate of Rs.1200/- per Are for the acquired land FA/1523/1983 6/6 JUDGMENT admeasuring 1 A and 32 Gs. of S.N.52 its market price will be Rs.79908/- Adding Rs.11986-20 being amount of 15% solatium, the total amount will come to Rs.91894-20. The claimants have been allowed Rs.26624-50 at the rate of Rs.550/- per Are and Rs.5463.60 as 15% Solatium. Thus deducting Rs.42088-10 from Rs.91884-20 the claimants will be entitled to Rs.49806-10 by way of enhanced compensation inclusive of solatium.” 9. Accordingly, after considering the evidence on record, lower Court partly allowed the reference and directed the opponent to deposit in all Rs.49806-10 as excess compensation for the acquired land inclusive of 15% solatium. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given and finding arrived at by the lower Court while passing impugned order. No other evidence is shown to me to take a contrary view. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. 10. For the reasons stated herein above, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) /malek