Case: Arvindbhai Bhagabhai Patel &amp; Others Vs. State of Gujarat &amp; Others

2. Land acquisition proceedings were initiated by issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as Act) on 26.08.2004, followed by declaration dated 12.01.2005 under Section 6 of the Act. The Land Acquisition Officer passed Award under Section 11 of the Act, determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 25 per square meter. The land owners sought reference under Section 18 of the Act. They claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 800 per square meter. They relied upon the report of the District Valuation Committee, Gandhinagar, for the Village Mansa fixing the rate at Rs. 815 per square meter. They also relied upon the Award in the case of land acquisition for which notification under Section 4 had been issued on 14.10.1999; compensation was determined at the rate of Rs. 431 per square meter, for the land acquired for the purpose of a drill site to be set up by Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC), at a distance of 2 km in the same village. Reliance was also placed by the land owners on the valuation report by the Government Registered Valuer determining the rate at Rs. 700 per square meter for the land, and at Rs. 800 per square meter for the land with fruit bearing trees. Land owners, as well as other parties, adduced the evidence before the Reference Court.3. The Reference Court, relying upon the Award passed in the case of land acquisition for the purpose of ONGC, awarded compensation giving 10 per cent increase, w.e.f. 1999, till the date of notification issued in this case on 26.08.2004, and worked out the compensation at the rate of Rs. 646.50. However, it reduced the same to Rs. 585. As L25 had been awarded by Land Acquisition Collector, that amount too was reduced. The final amount payable, over and above the determination made by the Land Acquisition Collector, was fixed at Rs. 560 per square meter. Aggrieved thereby, the State Government preferred appeals in the High Court. The appeals have been allowed in part. The High Court has relied upon the Award with respect to village Sargasan in which, the land had been acquired by issuance of notification under Section 4 in the year 1993. The value was determined in the Award at the rate of Rs. 231 per square meter. The High Court has granted a 10 per cent flat increase for 11 years to determine the compensation in the instant case, and worked out the figure at Rs. 485. Applying 30 per cent cut, the High Court determined the compensation at Rs. 339. 10 per cent addition has been made to work out the figure at Rs. 373. From the amount of land at Rs. 373, Rs. 25 has been deducted; as such, the figure has been worked out at Rs. 348 per square meter. Hence, the land owners are in198 OF 201214. In the instant matters, notification was issued in August, 2004, under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.15. The decision in the case of Mansa, relied upon by the High Court in the instant appeals, is set aside by the aforesaid judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.IL APPEAL NO. 18575 OF 2017 (@SLP(C) NOS. 20162 OF 2015)Leaved granted.24. In the present appeal, notification under Section 4 was issued on 23.07.2009. Award was passed by the Land Acquisition Collector, determining the compensation at the rate of Rs. 17 per square meter. In reference, the Reference Court granted enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs. 765 per square meter, relying upon the previous judgment, making deduction of 40 per cent. The High Court has relied upon the decision which was based on the Award for a different village passed in 1993 in the case of Mansa. The determination of compensation as the basis of award for Village Sargasan was held to be impermissible for the reasons mentioned in the judgment rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.

Reasoning:
6. In our opinion, in the absence of comparative sale exemplar evidence, the best evidence, in this case, was the Award in the case of ONGC of the same village. That Award too was based upon the acquisitions that had been made in the same village. The price determined by the High Court on the basis of Award passed in the year 1993 was not in close proximity of time. The village was at distance from Mansa. The distance from Gandinagar was not of much consequence in the instant case. As to what was the development in the particular village, in the particular area, was required to have been taken into consideration, and also, as to what price prevailed as per the evidence of Award/judgment that had been placed on record. Obviously, some cut was required to have been applied, as the prior acquisition had been of small piece of land, i.e., 2000 square meters, made in the year 1999, for the purposes of drill site established by ONGC.7. In our opinion, in the absence of an application having been filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, it was not permissible for the High Court to take into consideration the Award that had been passed with respect to village Sargasan, as held by this Court in The Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board v. H. Narayanaiah & Ors. [1976 (4) SCC 9  ].This Court has laid down that judgment/ Award can be received in evidence only after affording an opportunity of rebuttal to the opposite party by way of adducing evidence. At the stage of appeal, if Award/judgment has to be read in evidence, an application has to be filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of the Act to take additional evidence on record, and if allowed, opportunity to lead evidence in rebuttal has to be afforded. Thus, in the present case, the Award that had been passed with respect to the 1993 acquisition, could not have been taken into consideration by the High Court.That being the position of law, in our opinion, the High Court has wrongly taken into consideration the Award passed in the case of the village Sargasan. Even if it were to be taken into consideration, the same could not have been formed the basis by the High Court for determining the compensation, as the Award, with respect to the same village, in closer proximity of time, was available in the instant case. It was not safe to rely upon the Award with respect to a different village, that too in which, acquisition had been made 11 years before. Even if this Award is taken into consideration, reliance on the same could not be said to be permissible and in accordance with law as other better evidence was on record.