Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 427 (GUJ)

Deputy Collector v. Parvatbhai Mohansinh Bariya

2011-05-11

J.C.UPADHYAYA, JAYANT PATEL

body2011
Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—Both the appeals arise against the judgement and award passed by the Reference Court in LCR No. 45/2006 as well as LCR No. 49/2006, whereby the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at Rs. 35/- per sq. mtrs., plus statutory benefits under the Act. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned AGP for the appellant and Mr. Raval, learned Counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the original claimants, declared before the Court that the present two appeals are the left out matters of the group of First Appeal No. 2168 of 2010 with 2169 of 2010 to 2177 of 2010, which has been decided by this Court vide order dated 2.8.2010 and as per the reasons recorded in the said order, the judgement and award of the Reference Court has not been interfered with. 3. We may record that in the group of First Appeals No. 2168 of 2010 and allied matters decided on 2.8.2010, this Court had observed thus :— “1. As all the appeals arise from common judgment and as common facts are involved for consideration, they are being considered by this common order. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that for the acquisition of the land of Village: Adalwada, Taluka : Dhanpur, District : Dahod, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act(hereinafter referred to as “ the act”) was published on 10.3.2004,the award was passed on 14.2.2005 under Section 11 of the Act and the compensation awarded was of Rs. 7.50/- per sq.meter for non-irrigated land and Rs. 9/- for irrigated land. The land owners/original claimants were not satisfied with the compensation, therefore, the dispute was raised which was ultimately referred to the Reference Court for adjudication. It was prayed that the compensation be awarded at Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre of the land under acquisition. The Reference Court tried the Reference and ultimately passed the judgment and award dated 11.5.2007, whereby the additional compensation is awarded at Rs. 35/- per sq.meter plus the solatium and other statutory benefits and the interest etc. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. H.H. Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants in all the matters. 4. 35/- per sq.meter plus the solatium and other statutory benefits and the interest etc. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court. 3. We have heard Mr. H.H. Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants in all the matters. 4. The only contention raised on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the decision of other Reference Court for acquisition of the land of Jalod taluka. He submitted that unless evidence was there on record to show that the present lands were just adjacent to the land of Reference Case No. 254 of 2004, in respect to the lands of Jalod Taluka, the reliance placed is erroneous, therefore, it would be a case for remand of the matter to the Reference Court for re-consideration. 5. The examination of the said contention shows that it is not the only matter where the Reference Court has not at all considered the other aspects. In order to assess the valuation of the land, broadly, three modes or the yardsticks are settled. One is of the sale instances, the another is, if any award or compensation is fixed by the competent Court in respect to the similar land or adjacent land and the third is yield method. On the aspect of the sale instances, the Reference Court has considered, but the said aspect is not given weightage on the ground that there was no evidence which led to the effect that there was voluntary sale and voluntary purchase and/or fertility of the land for which, the sale instances were shown. The sale deeds were also not produced. On the aspect of yield method, the claim was of Rs. 1,00,000/- per acre and the evidence, as was led on behalf of the claimants, was to the effect that the annual agricultural income from the land was Rs. 1,00,00/- per acre per year. Learned Judge, while appreciating the evidence, has not fully relied upon the said aspects and has assessed yearly income of approximately Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Out of the said amount, 50% is deducted towards expenses of the agriculture and net income assessed is Rs. 15,000/- per acre. 6. 1,00,00/- per acre per year. Learned Judge, while appreciating the evidence, has not fully relied upon the said aspects and has assessed yearly income of approximately Rs. 30,000/- per acre. Out of the said amount, 50% is deducted towards expenses of the agriculture and net income assessed is Rs. 15,000/- per acre. 6. The formula applied for capitalist value is 10 times of the annual income, therefore, the learned Judge has found that the market value would be considered as Rs. 1,50,000/- per acre. If the said finding of the learned Judge is considered per sq.meter, the value of the land would be Rs. 40 per sq.meter. It is in addition to the aforesaid finding, the learned Judge has relied upon the order of the Reference Court in Reference Case No. 254 of 2004 in respect to the other agricultural land of Jalod Taluka, wherein the additional compensation awarded was Rs. 35/-. The pertinent aspect is that, as stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the said decision of the Reference Court in Reference Case No. 254 of 2004 has been confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 4073 of 2007 and allied matters vide order dated 17.8.2007. Another aspect which is required to be taken note of is that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in that case was published on 22.1.2001 and the additional compensation awarded was Rs. 35 per sq.meter. If the appreciation, at the rate of 10% per annum, is considered from the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, in that case and the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, it would be approximately 30% more since there is a gap of about 3 years in between. In spite of the same, the learned Judge has not considered the appreciated value and has taken the base as was granted on the basis of the valuation assessed in the year 2001 at Rs. 35/- per sq.meter. In spite of the same, the learned Judge has not considered the appreciated value and has taken the base as was granted on the basis of the valuation assessed in the year 2001 at Rs. 35/- per sq.meter. Under these circumstances, we find that the contention that unless the land of Taluka Jalod, which was subject matter of Reference Case No. 254 of 2004 was adjacent to the land in question, the Reference Court could not have relied upon the decision of the earlier award passed in respect to the land of Taluka Jalod, which would not only lose its importance but considering the case in either way, may be on the basis of the yield method or may be on the basis of the compensation fixed for similar land, it is not possible to accept the contention that the additional compensation awarded can be said to be unfair or improper. 7. No other contention is raised. Hence, appeals are meritless, therefore, dismissed.” 4. No other fact situations are brought to the notice of this Court and as per the above referred decision, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court of Rs. 35/- per sq. mtrs., plus statutory benefits are not interfered with. 5. Under these circumstances, the present appeals are also meritless and, therefore, dismissed.