Research › Browse › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 424 (GUJ)

Special LAQ Officer v. Patel Pravinbhai Amtharam

1998-07-16

S.K.KESHOTE

body1998
S. K. KESHOTE, J, J. ( 1 ) THERE is delay in filing these appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he has already filed applications for condonation of delay in filing these appeals. To consider as to whether the delay in filing the appeals has to be condoned or not, I consider it necessary to see whether the appeals themselves have any merit or not, which warrants admission of the appeals. On 23rd June, 1998 arguments were heard on merits of the matter for admission, and the order was kept C. A. V. Civil applications for condonation of delay have been presented on 24th June, 1998. ( 2 ) THESE first appeals have arisen out of the common award and judgment dated 1st february, 1997 made by the 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana under which land acquisition reference cases No. 276/89 to 294/89 have been decided. These reference cases were consolidated by the reference Court and main Land Reference Case was taken to be 276/89. ( 3 ) LAND acquisition proceedings were initiated for acquisition of the land which are subject matter of these appeal for the purpose of Vadnagar Kahipur Jantral road. The lands of the claimants which are acquired are situated in the sim of village Vadnagar, taluka Kheralu in Mehsana District. Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition act, 1894 was published on 15. 12. 1983. Section 6 notification came to be published on 8. 7. 1986. The Land Acquisition Officer had issued notice under Sec. 9 of the Act to the pejsons interested in the acquired land. The claimants have filed the claim applications before the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer had issued notice under Sec. 9 of the Act to the persons interested in the acquired land. The claimants have filed the claim applications before the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition officer, under his award dated 29th March, 1988 awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1. 10 per sq. mt. At the instance of the claimants reference has been made under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court. Before the reference Court the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. mt. In support of their claim the claimants produced before the reference Court extract of village Form No. 7/12 vide Exh. mt. At the instance of the claimants reference has been made under Sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Civil Court. Before the reference Court the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. mt. In support of their claim the claimants produced before the reference Court extract of village Form No. 7/12 vide Exh. 26 to 44, certified copy of the judgment of the Civil Court at Mehsana in Land acquisition Reference No. 240/88 to 243/88, copy of the price list at Exh. 25 and certificate of the Talati cum Mantri Exh. 27 regarding destruction of record due to fire. In the oral evidence, one Patel Pravinbhai Amtaram was examined at Exh. 24. From the side of the opponent State (appellant herein) neither oral evidence nor any documentary evidence was produced. The opponent State has closed its evidence by pursis Exh. 46. The claimants, before the reference Court, endeavoured to establish market price of the land acquired on the basis of method of capitalisation. However, during the course of argument, learned counsel who was appearing for the claimants contended that in respect of land of the village Vadnagar which have been acquired by the Stale Government for the very project, the District Court, Mehsana, in the land acquisition reference cases No. 240/88 to 243/88 award compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. mt. and on the basis of that judgment of the reference Court in these cases also the claimants should be awarded compensation for acquisition of their land at the rate of Rs. 10 per sq. mt. The judgment of reference Court in respect of lands of village Vadnagar has been submitted at Exh. 9. Relying on this judgment, in these matters the reference Court held that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 10 per sqmt. Reference Court has also made reference to the decision of this Court in the case of Officer on Special Duty (Land acquisition), GIDC, Ahmedabad vs. Jamkuben Kalidas Sodha and Anr. , reported in 1992 (1)GLH 417 . ( 4 ) IT is no more res Integra that the previous judgment of the reference Court in matter of determination of compensation to be awarded in another case is a relevant piece of evidence. , reported in 1992 (1)GLH 417 . ( 4 ) IT is no more res Integra that the previous judgment of the reference Court in matter of determination of compensation to be awarded in another case is a relevant piece of evidence. However, while relying on that evidence the reference Court has to take care of the fact that the lands which were subject matter of the previous judgment are of equal fertility and are also situated in near proximity of distance. From the evidence on the record of these matters produced before the reference Court it is clear that the lands which were subject matter of the previous judgment and the lands which are subject matter of these appeals are of equal fertility and both are situated at reasonable proximity of distance. It has also come on record in evidence that there is common simada of both these sets of lands. ( 5 ) THE opponent State (appellant herein) has not produced any oral or documentary evidence in support of their case. It is true that oral submission was made by the counsel who was appearing for the opponent-State that the lands, subject mailer of the previous judgment and ihe subject matter of the present case, cannot be taken to be of equal fertility and as such no interference could have been made by the reference Court with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. In absence of any oral or documentary evidence, I am satisfied that the reference Court has not committed any error in observing, "this fact is not proved by the opponent State of Gujarat by cogent and convincing evidence". The reference Court, after appreciating evidence produced by the claimants, has not committed any error in observing that there is common simada of these lands, i. e. subject matter of the previous judgment and the subject matter of these appeals, and that the lands are of equal fertility. So it is a case where the judgment of the reference Court is based on the previous decision of the court and that judgment was relevant and material piece of evidence which could have been relied and has rightly been relied upon by the reference Court in this case. The lands have common simada and they are found of same fertility. The lands have common simada and they are found of same fertility. Apart from this, otherwise also, 1 find that the additional compensation awarded by the reference Court in substantial cases is less than rs. 15,000/ -. In few appeals the additional compensation is no doubt more than Rs. 15,000/ -. But that is also not of substantial difference. In two appeals this difference appears to be less than Rs. 1,000/-; in three appeals this difference is about Rs. 4000/- to rs. 5000/ -. The Division Bench of this Court in C. A. No. 7868/97 (Special Land acquisition Officer v. v. Shantaben Chhitubhais widow and Ors.) and other Civil applications in First Appeal No. 2274/97 and allied matters) decided on 10. 9. 1997 has taken the view that where the amount of compensation is of petty and small amount, that is to say less than Rs. 15,000, this Court may not interfere in the award. So in substantial number of appeals, otherwise also, no admission of the same is called for, in view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court. So far as other appeals are concerned, though the amount of compensation awarded is more than Rs. 15,000/-, still, as found-earlier, on merits there is no case in favour of the appellant and, therefore, no interference is called. for in those appeals also. ( 6 ) I have considered the civil applications filed by the State for condonation of delay in filing these appeals. When the appeals themselves have no merits, I am of the opinion that no fruitful purpose will be served if delay is condoned in these matters. As observed by Division Bench of this Court, issuance of notice in these civil applications will otherwise cause prejudice to the other side who will have to spend considerable amount for defending the civil applications. ( 7 ) IN the result all these civil applications are dismissed, and the appeals are also dismissed. .