FA/1717/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1717 and 1718 of 2007 With FIRST APPEAL No. 1725 of 2007 To FIRST APPEAL No. 1735 of 2007 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. ========================================================= SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 2 - Appellant(s) Versus SOMABHAI GOPALBHAI & 9 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MS TRUSHA PATEL, AGP for Appellant(s) : 1 - 3. None for Defendant(s) : 1 - 10. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 14/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. By way of these appeals, the State has challenged the judgment FA/1717/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT and order of the Reference Court dated 24/2/2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (SD), Bharuch in Land Reference Case Nos.2306 to 2322 of 1998 whereby the reference Court has granted Rs.46/- per sq. mtr. 2. Brief facts of the case are that lands of original claimants situated at village Saladra, Taluka-Vagra, District-Bharuch were acquired for the public purpose to construct a canal under Narmada Yojna known as Saladra Minor-2 Canal. After following due procedure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared his award on 19/10/1997 and awarded Rs.307.50 per Are. Being aggrieved by the same, original applicants have filed References before the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Bharuch. The learned Judge after hearing the matter, awarded compensation of Rs.46/- per sq. mtr. as stated above. Hence, these appeals. 3. Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that even if principle adopted by the Trial Court of previous award is accepted, there is error in the calculation. According to him, one third is required to be deducted for the irrigated land. Therefore, deducting one third, Rs.38 was granted. From the record, it is evident that the Reference Court has relied upon Exh.42 wherein Notification under Section 4 was published on FA/1717/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT 28/4/1989. In the present case, the Section 4 Notification was published on 6/6/1996 and therefore, the present references are later by seven years. If we take the difference into consideration the claimants are entitled to rise in price at the rate of 1.6 percent (10% only) which would come to Rs.18.16. In that view of the matter, the total compensation amount would come to Rs.43.50 only per sq. mtr. Therefore, there is an apparent mistake on the part of the Tribunal in awarding Rs.46/- per sq. mtr. 5. In the premises aforesaid, it is held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.43.50 per sq. mtr. instead of Rs.46/- per sq. mtr. These First Appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. The award of the Reference Court is modified to the aforesaid extent. Rest of the award is not disturbed. No order as to costs. (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (ila)