FA/1296/1988 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1296 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1297 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1301 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1302 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1304 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1305 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1306 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1307 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1308 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1309 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1310 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1312 of 1988 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1313 of 1988 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 ? FA/1296/1988 2/7 JUDGMENT 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 - Appellant(s) Versus JAMUBHAI BHANABHAI & 6 - Defendant(s) ================================================== Appearance : MS MINI NAIR, APP, for Appellant(s) : 1, (MR BJ JADEJA) for Defendant(s) : 1 - 7. ================================================== CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 11/04/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These are appeals filed by the appellant State of Gujarat under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with section 96, CPC, challenging the common judgement and awards passed by the Reference Court under section 18 of the said Act. 2. Because of heavy floods in the river Tapti, there used to be loss of life, hardships in and around the city of Surat. Therefore a study was FA/1296/1988 3/7 JUDGMENT conducted and the experts suggested to construct embankments. In pursuance of the said suggestion certain lands were required after following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act. The lands of the present respondents were included in the acquisition proceedings. Notification under section 4 of the Act was issued on 6.7.1978 and notification under section6 was issued on 5.5.1979. The Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate ranging between Rs.3/- and 13 per square meter. Feeling that the said compensation is inadequate, the land owners had preferred various references to the Reference Court. The Reference Court raised the compensation to the rate of Rs.15/- and the references were allowed. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid awards the above appeals have been filed at the instance of the State. 3. The main contention advanced on behalf of the appellants is that compensation has been awarded for agricultural land on the basis of non-agricultural land. It was submitted that the sale instances cited before the court were of to non-agricultural land and therefore the said lands could not have been compared with those agricultural land and awarded compensation accordingly. It was further submitted that the sale instances are after the publication of section 4 notification and that the rate of Rs.15/- is on the higher side and it was granted without any FA/1296/1988 4/7 JUDGMENT evidence whatsoever. 4. These appeals are of the year 1988. None appears for the respondents. Since no adverse order is being passed against the respondents, the appeals are disposed of without issuing notice to the respondents. 5. As a result of hearing and perusal of the record, it is found that the Reference Court has discussed the issue in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgement in detail, which read as under: “11. On another count also the same rate appears to be just and proper. Under the Housing and Urban Development Scheme, the T.P. Scheme was made applicable and certain lands were acquired. The notification issued under the T.P. Scheme for the acquisition of the lands exh.17 reveals that the Government preferred to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs.19/- per sq. meter. The notification was issued on 2.9.76. Here, in this case, the notification under section 4 was issued on 6.7.78. The lands to be acquired under the T.P. Scheme were very close to the then city limits of Surat Municipality and hence the rate was fixed at the rate of Rs.19/- per sq. meter. The lands in question are little bit away from the then limits of Surat city, and some deduction is required to be made. Considering that aspect, Rs.15/- per sq. meter would be the just and proper rate for awarding the compensation. Certain lands from Adajan village were acquired by issuing notification under Section 4 on 3.8.72. The lands were acquired for the same purpose, viz., construction of the embankment. In those cases, the compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.10.50 p. per sq. metre, and for some of the lands, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.10.50 per sq FA/1296/1988 5/7 JUDGMENT meter, and for some of the lands, compensation was awarded at the rate of Rs.6.75 per square meter. The aggrieved claimants then preferred land reference case No.2 of 1979, 7 of 1979, 8 of 1979, 10 of 1979 and 12 of 1979. The then learned Extra Assistant Judge, Surat, heard those land references and vide his judgement dated 9.1.80, the copy of which is produced at Exh.24, awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per square meter. When for the similar purpose for the lands acquired earlier, the compensation has been awarded at such rate, I see no justification to award less than the lower rate already fixed by the then learned Assistant Judge. The Special Land Acquisition Officer at Surat in another case awarded the compensation of the lands of the same village at the rate of Rs.20.50 per square meter, and of certain lands at the rate of rs.17.50 per square meter. Those lands were slightly higher in quality in all respects than the lands in question. Hence, considering some deduction, on the basis of that award, fair compensation can be awarded at the rate of Rs.15/- per square meter. Thus, from the sale instances and awards produced on record, and deduction that can reasonably be made for the purpose of just valuation of the agricultural land, in this case the compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. meter must be awarded. 12. It may be stated that the perusal of evidence on record reveals that the city limit of Surat Municipal Corporation was extended before about 16 years and village Adajan was included within the municipal limits. Thereafter developments of the village was fast; schools and colleges were established in 1967. As the need increased, the S.T. Corporation installed its depot there, the cement industries and other industries also came to be established gradually and thus the area in question was the attraction of many. Subsequently the organizers formed co- operative housing societies and purchased the lands. They then constructed the houses and allotted to the members. Accordingly, several cooperative housing societies came into being; and they are Shanti Nagar, Sugam, Kama, Gandhi Nagar, Kotwal Nagar, Ashirvad Cooperative Housing Society, Jai Jalaram, Sailesh Nagar, Shiv Shakti, Alpa and Picnic Park Cooperative Society, etc. There are also residential quarters for the employees of Kribhco, FA/1296/1988 6/7 JUDGMENT Narmada Cement and Olpad Cynamid Ltd. Over and above such development there were/are cinemas, roads, tap and lights in or around the lands in question. Thus, multiple use of the land in question was possible when he lands in question were acquired. The level, size and shape of the land in question are suitable for multiple use even now too. Future development should also be borne in mind. At present, the area is developed in all the fields, and it has become the attractive part of the city of Surat. At present also the area in question being most suitable and convenient, every one desiring to settle at Surat prefers to have land, for residential or commercial purpose, in this area, because the same being nearer to old Surat; he would feel that he is not away from Surat. Hence demand is greater than the availability of lands. Looking to such development which was then in mind and yet development being faster, had the lands been not acquired by the Government, the claimants would have made profitable use thereof getting the same converted into N.A. Land and would have fetched more amounts than what they would be getting. Considering such development in the area, the claimants must be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per square meter. The fast falling value of the rupee cannot be ignored. In May 1978, Notification under section 4 was issued. At that time, value of the rupee was 30.4 paise and at present it is about 13 paise. Considering such erosion, fair compensation cannot be at the rate less than Rs.15/- per square meter. Under the circumstances, I agree with the claimants that the learned Special Land Acquisition officer awarded the compensation at the meagre rate. They ought to have been awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per square meter. I, therefore, hold that in these cases the adequate compensation must be awarded at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq. metre. 6. It is required to be noted that in this case the land acquired was included in the Municipal area and all facilities were also available. It is further required to be noted that in the sale instances which were relied upon by the Reference Court, the rates were Rs.19/-, 17.50 and FA/1296/1988 7/7 JUDGMENT Rs.20.50 per square meter. The documents are exhibited and only because of non-examination of party to document, such evidence cannot be discarded. The documents are registered documents and the court can consider the evidentiary value of the same. The trial court has also considered all other aspects of the matter and therefore I am of the view that the learned Advocate for the appellant is not able to point out any ground so as to persuade this court to take a different view of the matter. 7. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the impugned judgement and award do not merit any interference in these appeals. The impugned judgement, taken in its overall perspective, is, in my opinion, not assailable. I agree with the assessment of the evidence on the part of the Reference Court, the conclusions drawn therefrom and the findings of fact recorded. These appeals are therefore dismissed. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] ar