FA/12919/1989 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 129 of 1989 To FIRST APPEAL No. 154 of 1989 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 ? ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT - Appellant(s) Versus PATEL VIRAMBHAI JETHABHAI & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SUNIT SHAH G.P. WITH MS TRUSHA PATEL A.G.P. for Appellant(s) : 1, None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 2. MR NS SHEVADE for Defendant(s) : 3, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 27/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals are directed against the common judgment and FA/12919/1989 2/3 JUDGMENT award dated 30.09.1987 passed in Land Reference Case Nos.117/1986 to 142/1986 by the learned Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar whereby, the said reference cases were partly allowed. 2.0 The respondent – Western Railway, proposed to acquire the lands situated in Village & Taluka Bayad, District Sabarkantha, belonging to the respondent – original claimants, for the purpose of constructing the Nadiad – Kapadvanj – Modasa Railway Project, under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. On completion of all the legal formalities, the L.A.O. passed the award dated 30.04.1985. 2.1 Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants preferred applications before the authority requesting to refer the dispute to the competent Court for adjudication, which, ultimately, came to be referred to the Court below by way of references. The reference Court, after hearing the parties, partly allowed the reference cases. Hence, these appeals. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant – State and learned counsel for respondent no. 3. None appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2, original claimants. The main contention raised by the acquiring body is that the compensation awarded by the reference Court is on the higher side inasmuch the reference Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. 4. Attention of this Court is drawn to the fact that the reference Court ought not to have place reliance on an award [Exhibit – 39] passed in respect of an adjoining land bearing Survey No. 831 of the FA/12919/1989 3/3 JUDGMENT same Village by stating that it had become a subject matter of appeal before this Court. 5. However, neither of the parties are in a position to make a statement before this Court that appeal, if any, filed against the award at Exhibit – 39 before this Court, is pending or not. In the said circumstances, this Court has no other alternative but, to come to the conclusion that the award at Exhibit – 39 has attained finality. 6. From the record, it appears that the award at Exhibit – 39 is of the year 1979. Therefore, even if we take 20% increase, the assessment made by the reference Court appears to be just and reasonable. In that view of the matter, I do not find any reasons to interfere in these appeals. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in these appeals. 7. Even otherwise, in a majority of the appeals, the claim is less than Rs.25,000/-. It has been the consistent practice of this Court not to enter into the merits of those appeals wherein the claim is a petty claim and claims up to Rs.25,000/- have been quantified by this Court as petty claims. Therefore, as per the practice of this Court, the appeals also deserve to be rejected on this ground. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*