FA/1044/2008 1/8 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1044 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL ========================================= 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 LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 ­ Appellant(s) Versus AMBALAL NATHABHAI ­ Defendant(s) ========================================= Appearance : MR AMIT P PATEL ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Appellant(s) : 1­ 2. MR KM SHETH for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE DN PATEL Date : 25/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, is directed against the judgment and award dated FA/1044/2008 2/8 JUDGMENT 24.11.2005 rendered by the learned Fourth Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.661 of 1998 by which the claimant has been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.76.50Ps. per Sq. Mtr., over and above the compensation awarded to him by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.6.00ps. per Sq. Mtr. 2. The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Main Canal, Division No.4, Gandhinagar made a proposal to the State Government to acquire the land of village Limbadiya, Taluka and District Gandhinagar for the public purpose of construction of main canal under Narmada Project and on perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the land mentioned in the said proposal was likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued on 11.8.1992. Owner of the land was served with the notice as required by Section 4 of the Act. The claimant had opposed proposed acquisition. After considering the objections, necessary report was contemplated by Section 5­A(2) of the Act, was forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, State Government. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that the land of village Limbadiya, Taluka and District Gandhinagar specifying in the Notification published under Section 4 of the Act was needed for public FA/1044/2008 3/8 JUDGMENT purpose of construction of a canal under the Narmada Project. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made, which was published on 29.4.1993. Thereupon, interested claimant was thereafter served with the notice for determination of compensation payable to the claimant. The claimant appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.150/­ per Sq. Mtr. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimant at the rate of Rs.6.00Ps. per Sq. Mtr. by award dated 14.2.1994. The claimant was of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was totally inadequate. Therefore, the claimant submitted application under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer his case to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation payable to him. Accordingly, the reference was made to the District Court, Ahmedabad, where it was registered as Land Reference Case No.661 of 1998. 3. On behalf of the claimant, Ambalal Nathalal was examined at Exhibit 19. After giving particulars of the land acquired, the witness mentioned that the land acquired was highly fertile and he was earning substantial income, i.e. Rs.60,000/­ per vigha from the sale of the agricultural produces. The witness further asserted that there is increase FA/1044/2008 4/8 JUDGMENT in price of the land at the rate of 10% per year. The witness mentioned before the Court that the earlier land from the same village i.e. village Limbadiya, were acquired for the same public purpose and in those cases, he himself was also included and his land bearing 4856 Sq. Mtrs. from Block No.88 were acquired for the same purpose and ultimately, the reference has made by him along with other claimants, being Land Reference Case No.503 of 1991 (LRC No.506/91 Group). The Reference Court has partly allowed the reference of the claimant, which has been produced at Exhibit 15. He further asserted that from the same village, for the same purpose, the lands were acquired by the respondents and the claimants of the said land acquisition cases have been awarded the amount of compensation by the Reference court in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.506 of 1991 (Main) by order dated 14.11.1995. The certified copy of the said judgment has been produced by the claimant at Exhibit 16, wherein the Reference Court has awarded Rs.66.50Ps. per Sq. Mtr. as additional amount of compensation. The said judgment was challenged by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before this Hon'ble Court, being First Appeal No.4649 of 1996, with cognate matters, wherein this Hon'ble Court has modified the said judgment of the Reference Court to the extent that the claimants are entitled for the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.57/­ per Sq. Mtr. instead of Rs.70/­ per Sq. Mtr. The certified copy of the judgment of this Hon'ble FA/1044/2008 5/8 JUDGMENT Court was produced by the claimant at Exhibit 17. Against the said judgment of this Hon'ble Court, the respondent has filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court determined the market value of the said land of the claimant at the rate of Rs.53/­ per Sq. Mtr. by order dated 13.2.1998, in Special Leave Petition No.1928 to 1972 of 1998. Copy of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court produced by the claimants and ultimately, it is disposed by the claimant that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the amount has already been disturbed to the claimants of those cases. It is specifically stated by the witness that both the lands are having equal fertility and having equal nature. The claimant has also produced 7/12 at Exhibit 14. According to this witness, his village from the lands were acquired was fully developed and, therefore, the claimant was entitled for enhancement of compensation. 4. This witness was cross­examined by the learned counsel for the acquiring authorities but nothing substantial could be elicited nor assertion was made by the witness that the land of village Limbadiya which were acquired earlier were similar to the land acquired in the instant case, could be demonstrated to be untrue. 5. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the FA/1044/2008 6/8 JUDGMENT Reference Court was of the opinion that in view of the time gap between the Notifications issued and published under Section 4(1) of the Act, the claimant in the instant case was entitled to rise in price of the land at the rate of 10% p.a. Thus, in ultimate analysis, the Reference Court held that on the basis of the previous award, which attains finality, as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has determined the market value of the land of the same village at the rate of Rs.53/­ per Sq. Mtr. for the year 1987 and, therefore, considering time gap between the Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Reference Court held by judgment and award dated 24.11.2005 that the claimant is entitled to additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.76.50Ps. per Sq. Mtr., over and above, the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition, giving rise to the above numbered appeal. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Amit P. Patel for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. K.M. Sheth for the original claimant in the appeal and also considered the documents which include oral as well as documentary evidences adduced by the parties before the Reference Court. 7. It is well settled principle of the law that previous award of the Reference Court relating to the land of village, which has attained FA/1044/2008 7/8 JUDGMENT finality, can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining the market value of the similar lands acquired subsequently from the adjoining village. It is admitted fact that the judgment of the same village has become final between the parties upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has determined the market value of the same village at the rate of Rs.53/­ per Sq. Mtr. for the year 1987. It may be mentioned that the Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published with reference to the lands which were subject matter of Exhibit 16 and 17 on January, 1987, whereas in the instant case, Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 11.8.1992. Thus, there were time gap of about five years between issuance of two Notifications under Section 4 of the Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in catena of decisions that if there is time gap between two Notifications issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the claimants should be awarded rise in price of the land at the rise of 10% p.a. If the amount of compensation payable to the claimant is calculated after giving price rise at the rate of 10% p.a., the amount payable to the claimant as compensation by the Reference court is just and proper. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court was justified in placing the reliance on the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the land of the same village, which is modified and confirmed upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the FA/1044/2008 8/8 JUDGMENT purpose of determining 7. On the re­appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the correct findings of the facts have been recorded by the Reference Court after appreciation of the evidence adduced before it, to which well settled principles of law have been applied. Under the circumstances, the appeal which lacks merits, deserves to be dismissed. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to draw decree in term of this judgment immediately. (D.N. PATEL, J.) ynvyas