FA/217/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 217 of 2008 To FIRST APPEAL No. 223 of 2008 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 ? ====================================== THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND ANOTHER Versus NANIBEN PRABHATSANT ====================================== Appearance : MR SS SHAH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER with MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Appellants. RULE SERVED for Respondent. ====================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 29/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged judgment FA/217/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT and order dated 17-9-2004 passed by learned Extra Assistant and Special Judge (LAR), Ahmedabad (S.D.) in Land Reference Case No.2812 to 2818 of 1996, whereby said Reference Cases were partly allowed and claimants were held entitled to get Rs.46.30 per sq.mtr. as additional compensation over and above the compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer. 2. Facts leading to the present appeals are as under: 3. The lands in question are situated at village Kadadara, Taluka Dehgam, District Ahmedabad, which were acquired for the purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. Notification under Section 4 and Section of the Land Acquisition Act were published for the said purpose. After following due process of law, Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 25-3-1996 and awarded Rs.2.55 ps. per sq.mtr. as compensation as against the claim of Rs.50/-. Being aggrieved by it, reference cases being Land Reference Case Nos.2812 to 2818 of 1996 were preferred at the instance of the claimants before learned Extra Assistant and Special Judge (LAR), Ahmedabad (S.D.). Wherein after considering the evidence on record and also considering previous award, reference Court has granted Rs.46.30 ps. per sq.mtr. as additional compensation with all consequential benefits. Being aggrieved by it, the appellants have preferred present appeals. 3. Heard, learned AGP, Ms.Trusha Patel for the appellants and learned advocate, Mr.Sheth for the respondents. At the outset, it is submitted by both the sides that the issue involved in these appeals is squarely covered by the decision of this Court dated 25-8-2008 rendered in First Appeal Nos.3856 to 3860 of 2008, wherein this Court has observed as under: FA/217/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT “3. Ms. Patel, learned AGP has submitted that the reference court ought to have appreciated that the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded adequate compensation and there is no reason for enhancing the same. She has submitted that the reference court has committed grave error in awarding an amount of Rs. 47.45 per sq. mtr as additional compensation for the acquired land over and above the compensation which was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer by placing reliance on ex. 19 i.e. previous award of the same village in LAR No. 705/91. 4. Mr. Sheth, learned advocate for the respondent has supported the award of the reference court and has submitted that the reference court has awarded the amount of compensation after duly taking into consideration all the relevant aspects and therefore no interference is called for by this Court. 5. This court has gone into the materials placed on record including the award of the reference court. The reference court has gone into the evidence in detail and has passed the aforesaid award. The reference court while fixing the market value of the lands in question has considered the agricultural produces available from the land, the sale deed and other documentary evidence available on record. The reference court has relied upon Ex. 19 which is the award rendered in LAR No. 716 of 1991 wherein various survey numbers of village Kadadara were acquired. Based on the said award, the reference court passed the award which is impugned in the present appeal. This court is in complete agreement with the methodology and the principles adopted by the reference court in passing the award. FA/217/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT 6. In the premises aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. In view of the order passed in the first appeals, the civil applications shall not survive and are disposed of accordingly.” 5. As submitted by both the sides, issue involved in these appeals is covered by earlier decision of this Court. Therefore, reasonings given by this Court while dismissing First Appeal Nos.3586 to 3860/2008 will govern present appeals also. Therefore, in view of reasonings given in aforesaid appeals, which are reproduced herein above, it is held that the reference court has gone into the evidence in detail and has passed the aforesaid award. The reference court while fixing the market value of the lands in question has considered the agricultural produces available from the land, the sale deed and other documentary evidence available on record. The reference court has relied upon Ex. 22 which is the award rendered in LAR No. 716 of 1991 wherein various survey numbers of village Kadadara were acquired. Based on the said award, the reference court passed the award which is impugned in the present appeals. This court is in complete agreement with the methodology and the principles adopted by the reference court in passing the award. 6. In the premises aforesaid, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs. Record and Proceedings, if received, may be sent back forthwith. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) *malek