FA/151/2005 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 151 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= PATEL JUGALBHAI MOTIBHAI - Appellant(s) Versus SPECIAL LAQ OFFICER & 2 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR YN RAVANI for Appellant(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, 3, MR UDAY BHATT A.G.P. for Defendant(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKSHAY H.MEHTA Date : 10/11/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Original claimant of the Reference Case No. 601 of 1991 before the 3rd Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vadodara has approached this Court to FA/151/2005 2/7 JUDGMENT challenge the judgment and award dated 31st March, 2001 on the ground that the compensation awarded for acquistion of the land owned by him for Narmada Canal Project is inadequate and it is required to be enhanced. The agricultural land owned by the appellant was sought to be acquired along with other parcels of land of village Pachhipura, Taluka Karjan, District Vadodara. So far as the land of appellant is concerned, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”] was issued on 14th June, 1986. Thereafter, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 17th October, 1988 and notice under Section 9 of the Act was served on the appellant as 'person interested' on 20th December, 1986. Thereafter all the necessary requirements were complied with by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made an award and granted compensation at the rate of Rs.170=00 per Are to the appellant. The case was numbered as Case No. 2 of 1986. 2. Since the appellant was not satisfied with the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, he submitted application under Section 18 of the Act for making Reference. It may be noted here that along with the appellant other land owners also preferred Reference FA/151/2005 3/7 JUDGMENT under Section 18 of the Act. So far as the appellant's proceedings are concerned, they were numbered as Land Reference No. 601 of 1991. The case was treated as main Land Reference Case by the Reference Court and the evidence was recorded in it. Before the Reference Court the parties led evidence oral as well as documentary. On the basis of the material produced before it, the Reference Court arrived at conclusion that the market value determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e., respondent no. 3 was not adequate and it was required to be enhanced. According to the Court, the appropriate market value of the land of the appellant was Rs.600=00 per Are. He, therefore, directed the respondents to pay additional compensation on the basis of the said rate together with all the incidental statutory benefits, including interest. By the aforesaid judgment, the Reference Court disposed of Land Reference Case No. 601 of 1991 and its allied matters. However, before this Court now the only original claimant of the Land Reference Case No. 601 of 1991 has approached. 3. Mr. Y.N. Ravani learned advocate for the appellant has taken me through the record of this appeal, including the judgment of the Reference Court and has submitted that considering the documentary evidence FA/151/2005 4/7 JUDGMENT produced by the appellant in the form of sale instances and awards made in respect of the lands of the adjoining village, the market value determined by the Reference Court is very low and it is required to be increased. In his submission the Reference Court ought to have awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1100-Rs.1200/- per Are. As against that Mr. Uday Bhatt learned A.G.P., has submitted that even the market value determined at Rs.600 per Are by the Reference Court is on higher side and, therefore, there is no question of awarding any additional compensation to the appellant in this appeal. He has submitted that the Court has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence produced by the respondents and in particular, chart at Exh. 33, showing the sale instances which took place in that area during the period between 28th May, 1982 and 16th March, 1989. According to him, if due weightage had been given by the learned Judge to this piece of evidence, the market value of the land in question could not have been determined at Rs.600=00 but at much lesser rate. He has, therefore, submitted that this appeal has no merit and it is required to be dismissed. 4. Having given careful consideration to the rival submissions and having closely perused the evidence on record, it appears that the number of documents on both FA/151/2005 5/7 JUDGMENT the sides have been produced to substantiate their respective cases. So far as the appellant is concerned, he has placed reliance on the documents produced at Exh. 17, 25 and 28. Exh. 17 is the judgment delivered by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge (S.D.) At Vadodara in Land Reference Case No. 107 of 1994 and its cognate matters. The acquisition in the said case was in respect of village Atahia and it was for the same purpose namely construction of the Narmada Canal under the Narmada Project. In the said case, the market value had been determined at Rs.1,000=00 per Are. Mr. Ravani has submitted that at least on this basis the market rate ought to have been fixed by the Reference Court. However, this submission cannot be accepted simply for the fact that in that case Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 8th October, 1990 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 4th April, 1991, whereas in the present case, Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 14th June, 1986, which is almost four and half years earlier than the Notification relied on by Mr. Ravani. The document at Exh. 25 is the judgment rendered by the 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara in Land Reference Case No. 393 of 1996 and its allied matters. In this case the land was acquired also for construction of the main canal under the Narmada Canal FA/151/2005 6/7 JUDGMENT Project. The lands were of village Sherpura. In this case 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara by judgment and award dated 25th June, 1998 determined the market value of the land at the rate of Rs.13.95 paise per sq. mtr. However, this incident will also not help the appellant because in this case Notification under Section 4 (1) of the Act was published on 30th November, 1992 i.e., after about more than five and half years of Notification in the present case. 5. So far as Exh. 28 is concerned, it is in respect of land situated at Palej. It has been acquired for construction of the highway and Mr. Ravani also did not places much reliance on this document, as the present case cannot be compared with the facts of the award at Exh. 28. 6. When this is the position I am afraid that there is no other document which can persuade me to accept the contention of Mr. Ravani to enhance the rate of compensation determined by the Reference Court. It is also time and again said by different Courts that the claimant's case has to stand on its own strength or fall on its weakness. In my opinion, the appellant has failed to justify his demand for higher compensation. If that be FA/151/2005 7/7 JUDGMENT so, it is immaterial whether the evidence produced by other side was adequate in dislodging the claim of the appellant. Nevertheless, the documentary evidence relied on by the respondents was that of the period between 1982 and 1989. The average price of the land situated in that area was Rs.1.95 per sq. mtr. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is dismissed with no order as to costs. R & P to be re-transmitted to the Reference Court forthwith. [Akshay H. Mehta, J.] /phalguni/