Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 119 (GUJ)

Gosai Manjulaben Kalyansinh v. State of Gujarat

2011-02-23

J.C.UPADHYAYA

body2011
Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—These three appeals arise out of a common judgment and award rendered by learned Jt. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bharuch on 16.3.2005 in land reference case Nos.1995 to 1997 of 1998 whereby the reference Court determined the market value of the lands in acquisition @ Rs. 600/- per RA in case of irrigated land and Rs. 400/- per RA in case of non-irrigated land. There is no dispute that the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (‘Act’, for short) came to be published on dated 29.3.1996 and the notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 31.5.1997, the land acquisition Officer conducted land acquisition case No. 1997 of 1998 and determined Rs. 330/- per RA of irrigated land and Rs. 220/- per RA for non-irrigated land under Section 11 of the Act. The three claimants felt that the amount offered by the land acquisition Officer was quite inadequate and less and, therefore, preferred reference cases under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be numbered and registered as land reference case Nos.1995 to 1997 of 1998 before the reference Court. 2. There is also no dispute that the reference Court did not record any oral evidence or permitted either of the parties to produce any documentary evidence and the reference Court ascertained the market value @ Rs. 600 per RA for irrigated land and Rs. 400 per RA for non-irrigated land solely on the basis of the award passed by the land acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act. The said judgment and award is under challenge in these group of appeals. 3. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment and order rendered by the reference Court is not only improper, but is illegal. It is submitted that in absence of any evidence worth the name adduced by either of the parties, the reference Court determined the market value of the lands under acquisition on the basis of the award passed by the land acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act. Thus, the market value determined by the reference Court is based only on conjectures and presumptions. 3.1 Mr. Thus, the market value determined by the reference Court is based only on conjectures and presumptions. 3.1 Mr. Patel, learned Counsel submitted that there are other groups of matters which were pending in other Courts and though those matters were not arising out of the Land Acquisition Case No. 1997 of 1996, those matters pertain to the lands of the same village and even the public purpose in which those lands and the lands of the claimants came to the acquired, was same and, therefore, the claimants requested the reference Court to transfer these three cases to the Court where other cases were pending. Said request was turned down and the adjournment application filed by the claimants to take further recourse to see that all these cases are to be tried in one Court, said adjournment application came to be dismissed on 14.3.2005 and on 16.3.2005 the reference Court proceeded further in absence of any evidence to determine the market value of the lands under acquisition, and on the basis of the award under Section 11 of the Act, the reference Court ascertained the market value of the land. It is, therefore, submitted that the procedure adopted by the reference Court is not in accordance with law. The alleged market value determined by the reference Court does not form part of any evidence on record. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeals may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court be set-aside and the land reference cases may be remanded to the reference Court for disposal in accordance with law. 4. Ms. Mathur, learned AGP for the respondent submitted that in the impugned judgment and award the reference Court has assigned valid reasons for rejection of the adjournment application of the claimant as the reference Court observed that the claimants were purposefully delaying the smooth progress of the reference cases merely to earn 15% stipulated interest. It is, therefore, submitted that the reference Court, therefore, did not err in rejecting the adjournment application of the claimants. It is submitted that in the impugned award the reference Court has assigned cogent reasons for not dismissing the reference cases for default and to undertake exercise of determining just and fair amount of compensation. Therefore, it is submitted the appeals deserve dismissal and may be dismissed. 5. It is submitted that in the impugned award the reference Court has assigned cogent reasons for not dismissing the reference cases for default and to undertake exercise of determining just and fair amount of compensation. Therefore, it is submitted the appeals deserve dismissal and may be dismissed. 5. At the outset, it transpires that in the impugned judgment and award, the reference Court determined the amount of compensation in absence of any evidence whatsoever, namely, oral evidence or documentary evidence adduced by either of the parties. It is true that on 14.3.2005 when the claimants filed the application for adjournment, the same came to be rejected. Mr. Patel, learned Counsel submitted that in fact the application, which was filed was not adjournment application, and application to transfer these three land reference cases to the Court where the group of matters arising from the same village were pending. Be that as it may, but the fact remains that the application came to be dismissed by the reference Court on 14.3.2005. The reference Court failed to properly appreciate the cause for said application. There is no dispute that the other matters which were pending in other Court were arising from the same village wherein the lands of other claimants of the same village came to be acquired through those matters, do not arise out of the land acquisition case No. 1997 of 1998. It is submitted that the very object of the claimants was to see that as far as possible, uniformity remains in ascertaining the just and fair compensation of the land under acquisition. 5.1 After rejecting the said application, the reference Court took base of the award passed by the land acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act and making the award as base, came to the conclusion that the just and fair market value of the lands under acquisition can be Rs. 600/- per RA so far as irrigated land is concerned and Rs. 400/- per RA so far as non-irrigated land is concerned. It transpires that on the basis of presumption and assumptions and more particularly in absence of any evidence on record, the reference Court came to such conclusion. 600/- per RA so far as irrigated land is concerned and Rs. 400/- per RA so far as non-irrigated land is concerned. It transpires that on the basis of presumption and assumptions and more particularly in absence of any evidence on record, the reference Court came to such conclusion. It is stated that after the impugned judgment and award came to be passed on 16.3.2005 and the other land reference cases which arose from the same village came to be disposed of by another Court in the month of April 2005. 6. In light of the aforesaid background, it clearly transpires that the exercise undertook by the reference Court to determine the just and fair amount of compensation in absence of any evidence on record in the reference case, cannot be said to be legal and proper exercise. Under such circumstances, the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside and all the aforesaid three cases are ordered to be remanded to the reference Court with the direction to afford sufficient opportunity to both the sides to lead evidence and to decide these cases in accordance with law. Since these cases are very old, further direction is required to be given. 7. For the foregoing reasons, these three appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 16.3.2005 rendered by the learned Jt. District Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Bharuch in land reference case Nos.1995 to 1997 of 1998 are hereby set-aside. These three land reference cases are ordered to be remanded to the concerned Court with direction to afford sufficient opportunity to both the sides to adduce oral and documentary evidence and to decide these cases afresh on merits in accordance with law preferably within three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. There shall be not order as to costs. P P P P P