IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL NOS.2210, 2212 TO 2216, 2218, 2219 2221, 2223, 2224, 2226 TO 2234, 2236 TO 2241 OF 2000 Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- STATE OF GUJARAT Versus DAHYABHAI KARSHANBHAI GUARDIANOF MINOR KITRIKUMAR D PATEL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MS SIDDHI TALATI, AGP for Appellant MR JV JAPEE for respondents -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT Date of decision: 28/09/2000 COMMON ORAL JUDGEMENT 1. These are appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96 of CPC at the instance of the State of Gujarat, challenging the judgement and award of the Reference Court passed under section 18 of the said Act. The acquisition pertained to the Guhai Irrigation Project under section 4 Notification dated 3rd September 1987. The Reference Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, determined the market value of the irrigated lands at Rs.925/- per Are. It is this judgement and award which is challenged by the State of Gujarat in the present appeals. 2. It has been the consistent practice of this High Court not to enter into the merits of those appeals wherein the claim in appeal is a petty claim, and claims upto Rs.25,000/- have been quantified by this Court as petty claims. 3. No question of law or principle is urged. 3.1 Even if contentions on merits could have been urged, they could only be those urged in FA No.2209/2000 (forming part of this group), which has been decided on merits, and dismissed today. A copy of the judgement in FA No.2209/2000 shall be kept with this judgement. 4. These appeals are, therefore, summarily dismissed on the ground that they represent petty claims, without entering into the merits of the matter. 5. It is expected that the appellant will deposit the amount of compensation as per the Award in the Reference Court within three months from today. ****** *ar*