FA/836/2003 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 836 of 2003 To FIRST APPEAL No. 845 of 2003 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 ? ========================================================= SPECIAL LAQ OFFICER & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus MAGANBHAI MATHURBHAI PATAN- WADIA - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR SUNIT SHAH GP with MS TRUSHA PATEL AGP for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. MR TRILOK J PATEL for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 06/08/2008 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT 1.0. This group of First Appeals is directed against the common judgment and award made by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) Vadodara dated 21st July, 2001 in Land FA/836/2003 2/3 JUDGMENT Reference Cases No. 1083/1992 and its allied matters. Hence, they are heard together and now they are being disposed of by this common order. 2.0. The lands in question were proposed to be acquired for the purpose of Narmada Canal 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 7th January, 1988 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 30th August, 1988. The Special Land Acquisition Officer on completion of all the legal formalities, pronounced the award on 12th October, 1990. 3.0. The respondents being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, preferred applications to the Collector, under Section 18 of the Act, requesting to refer the matter to the competent Court for making Reference to the Court for enhancement of the compensation, which came to be numbered as Reference Cases. The Reference Court, by the aforesaid award, enhanced the compensation, and awarded Rs.1250/- per Are as the market value of the land. 4.0. The appellant-State, being aggrieved by the said award of the Reference Court, has filed these appeals under Section 54 of the Act. FA/836/2003 3/3 JUDGMENT 5.0. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. In the impugned award, the learned trial Judge has adopted the crop yield method for computing compensation. The lands in question are having good irrigation facility and when such facility is available, more than one crop in a year can be taken. The said fact is established from the document produced at Exh. 32. The learned trial Judge has also taken into consideration the oral evidence at Exhs. 37 to 45 and also the market price of the Committee at Exh.37. In my opinion, the impugned judgment, taken in its overall perspective, is not assailable. I am in complete agreement with the assessment of the evidence on the part of the Reference Court, the conclusions drawn therefrom and the findings of fact recorded. 6.0 In the result, the appeals stand dismissed. No order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/