FA/1330/1997 1/6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1330 of 1997 To FIRST APPEAL No. 1332 of 1997 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? -Yes. 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? -No. 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? -No. 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 ? -No. 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? -No. ========================================================= STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus BADABHAI GANESHBHAI HARIJAN - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. MR SATYEN B RAWAL for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 31/07/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. These appeals at the instance of State Government under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of FA/1330/1997 2/6 JUDGMENT the Civil Procedure Code are against the judgment and award passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Surendranagar in various land reference cases. 2. The acquisition of land was for the purpose of Vansal Small Irrigation Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 8/8/1990 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 15/11/1990. After issuing notice under Section 9, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has declared award against which various references were filed including the awards pertaining to the above appeals. The Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.900/- per Are. Against the aforesaid award, the present appeals have been filed. 3. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 4. Reference Court in para 8 to 12 of the award has observed as under: 8) In that case court has given rates of Rs.480/- per ARE for Bagayat Lands, Rs.320/- per ARE for High Jirayat lands and Rs.240/- for Jirayat lands. The said lands are besides this lands. Now seeing this judgment it seems that the Notification under Section 4 was published on 21/8/1980 for the previous lands under acquisition, while the notification of the present case was FA/1330/1997 3/6 JUDGMENT published on 22/8/1990 on the chavdi of the village i.e. publication between these two notification has been passed ten years period. It is clearly seems from the award of Land Acquisition Officer that these three lands are Bagayat lands. 9) The learned Land Acquisition Officer has also taken into consideration the award of previously acquired lands and in that it has been awarded Rs.120/- for Bagayat land in Land Acquisition Case No.6 of 1979 on 11/7/1986. That fact is also considered by them. But what would be sale price of that land? That is not considered but for their facility, considering Rs.60/- of Jirayat land, it would be Rs.2428/- per Acre that fact is considered, while considering the sale transactions of the surrounding lands. Rs.2536/- per Acre price is fixed and seeing the time passed they have determined Rs.3200/- per Acer. As such, in 1980 the rate which was awarded by the previous Land Acquisition Officer for the High Jirayat Land, approximately that rate is awarded by them in 1990 for Jirayat lands. 10) The prosecution running before this Court is an independent prosecution under Section 18 of Land Acquisition Act. This prosecution has not concern with the prosecution running before the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, evidence produced before the Land Acquisition Officer, that evidence cannot be taken into consideration by this Court. Such evidence FA/1330/1997 4/6 JUDGMENT before this Court should be proved independently. Therefore, the particulars regarding sales of surrounding lands which are seen in the award of the Trial Court, that is not proved before this Court, that should not be taken into consideration. Seeing the evidence produced before this Court in which only above proved award is there, while independently crops and other particulars are produced but no other particulars regarding rates and production are not produced. If previous award is seen, the reliable evidence of Market Yard before this Court regarding the rates of the relevant time. Moreover, after considering that evidence, award passed by this Court in which not preferring the appeal, Government has accepted the same, if that is considered then it is determined that it was Rs.480/- for Bagayat land in 1980. 11) Taking into consideration the judgment of AIR 1983 Gujarat- 208, the officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) GIDC, Ahmedabad vs. Dahyabhai Chuthabhai, it is stated by Shri Mehta that if any award or Court's order in respect of the same land come to know than the same may be surely considered and in that the facts regarding increase of rates year to year should also be considered. As stated by him if 10% price increase is considered than after ten years, the amount of the acquired land should be given double than the previous award. FA/1330/1997 5/6 JUDGMENT 12) The Government is also very well aware of the rate increase in Land and other things. In other scheme it becomes double amount with interest within six years or more period, while in Kisan Vikas Patra in which the expenses will have to be occurred for Agriculture and its development in that also Government has made scheme of double amount within five years. Thus, regarding such agriculture land rate increase of production and approximately 20% yearly income is assessed by the Government but in such type of case capital remains steady for that period if that fact is considered than increase in that is multiple nature interest that fact should also be considered. In this case it requires to be considered the facts in addition that when the land was acquired besides that land in question the Dam was not constructed there, but after ten years if the water of Dam is not brought for irrigation even though the irrigation possibility was increased as Land besides the Dam and therefore, its production power is considered to be increased. Taking into consideration this facts if after ten years approximately double amount is awarded then the previously awarded Rs.480/- will be proper and reasonable as I believe. 30% solatium is also entitled on increased amount therefore, instead of giving double amount directly, that it require to decrease the same. Considering all this facts following order has been passed. FA/1330/1997 6/6 JUDGMENT 5. In view of the above, it is evident that the method adopted by the Reference Court is just and proper. No evidence is pointed out to take a contrary view of the matter. 6. For the foregoing reasons, all the three appeals deserve to be dismissed. The same are dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. In view of the fact that First Appeals are disposed of, Civil Applications would not survive and are accordingly disposed of. (K.S.Jhaveri, J.) (ila)