Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 464 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Kanbi Vallabh Arjan

2013-08-01

JAYANT PATEL, Z.K.SAIYED

body2013
Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—When the Civil Application No. 7651/13 has come up for hearing, with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, the main First Appeal itself is finally heard. 2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment & Award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No. 584/99, whereby the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at Rs. 58.90 per sq. mtr. plus the benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”). 3. The short facts of the case are that for the project of Junagadh Bypass, the lands were to be acquired under the Act at village Chobari. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 13.06.1985 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 27.03.1986. The award was passed on 17.01.1987 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 110 per Are (Rs. 1.10 per sq. mtr.). As the land owners-original claimants were not satisfied with the compensation, they raised dispute under Section 18 of the Act and demanded compensation at Rs. 100 per sq. mtr. Such dispute was referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Land Reference Case No. 584/99. The Reference Court at the conclusion of the reference passed the above referred Judgment & Award. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 4. We have heard Mr. Soni, learned AGP for the appellant and Mr. Buch for the original claimants respondents herein. 5. The perusal of the impugned Judgment & Award of the Reference Court shows that the Reference Court has mainly relied upon the earlier decision of the Reference Court in Land Reference Case Nos. 306/99 to 316/99 for acquisition of the land at village Zanzarda for the very project by the very notification wherein, the market value of the land was assessed at Rs. 60 per sq.mtr. and the compensation was awarded accordingly. It has also come on record that the decision for awarding the compensation in the case of the land acquired at village Zanzarda was accepted by the State Government and no appeal was preferred challenging the said decision before this Court. Based on the said decision, the Reference Court has passed the impugned Judgment & Award. 6. It has also come on record that the decision for awarding the compensation in the case of the land acquired at village Zanzarda was accepted by the State Government and no appeal was preferred challenging the said decision before this Court. Based on the said decision, the Reference Court has passed the impugned Judgment & Award. 6. As such, if the Reference Court has relied upon the previous decision for acquisition of the land of the adjoining village for awarding of the compensation, such an approach on the part of the Reference Court cannot be said as erroneous. We have considered the decision of the Reference Court for awarding compensation in the case of village Zanzarda upon which the reliance has been placed by the Reference Court. The perusal of the said decision shows that the Reference Court considered the location of the land, the fertility as well as the sale instances and thereafter, the market value was also assessed. It may be recorded that as per the sale instance, for residential land, the price was ranging from Rs. 32 to Rs. 107 whereas, the Reference Court after taking into consideration the expenses for development, NA factor and smallness of the land, assessed the market value at Rs. 50. Thereafter, the land of the concerned agriculturists came to be divided into two parts on account of the bypass passing in between the land, 20% is added for the additional loss caused and thereafter, the market value is assessed at Rs.60 per sq. mtr. In the said case also, the compensation was awarded on the basis that the market value of the land is at Rs.60 per sq.mtr. out of which the amount already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer would be required to be deducted. The pertinent aspect is that in the matter of the acquisition of the land at village Zanzarda, the compensation was awarded at Rs. 110 per Are (Rs.1.10 per sq. mtr.) and at Rs.80 per Are (0.88 per sq. mtr.) for the non-irrigated land. We have further considered the map for the proposed acquisition and it appears that the whole bypass is passing towards western side of Junagadh city and the land of village Zanzarda comes first and thereafter, the land of village Chobari is located. mtr.) and at Rs.80 per Are (0.88 per sq. mtr.) for the non-irrigated land. We have further considered the map for the proposed acquisition and it appears that the whole bypass is passing towards western side of Junagadh city and the land of village Zanzarda comes first and thereafter, the land of village Chobari is located. Under these circumstances, we find that when the Award in the case of acquisition of the land of village Zanzarda is accepted by the Government and the land in question at village Chobari is similarly situated, the Reference Court cannot be said to have committed any error if the reliance is placed upon the decision for acquisition of the land at village Zanzarda. 7. Mr. Soni, learned AGP for the appellant raised the contention that in the same manner, the lands of village Sabalpur were also acquired by the very notification for the very project of bypass road of Junagadh. It was submitted that the another Reference Court had passed the award dated 13.12.2000 in Land Reference Case No. 322/99, whereby the compensation was awarded at Rs. 50 per sq. mtr. and such lands were nonagricultural lands. He submitted that the said decision of the Reference Court was carried before this Court in First Appeal No. 511/04 and allied matters and vide order dated 19.03.2004, this Court did not interfere with the award and confirmed the same. In his submission, if the matter is considered in light of the previous decision of the Reference Court for awarding compensation for land of village Sabalpur, at the most, it could be Rs.50 per sq. mtr., if NA factor is deducted. For agricultural land, the compensation will be much less and therefore, it was submitted that the Award passed by the Reference Court may be interfered with. 8. In normal circumstances, such contention can be said as with substance. However, the peculiar facts and circumstances in the present case is that for the adjoining land, when the compensation was awarded by the Reference Court for the very project at Rs.60 per sq. mtr., the State Government has not challenged the said decision, but accepted the same. If Rs. In normal circumstances, such contention can be said as with substance. However, the peculiar facts and circumstances in the present case is that for the adjoining land, when the compensation was awarded by the Reference Court for the very project at Rs.60 per sq. mtr., the State Government has not challenged the said decision, but accepted the same. If Rs. 60 as compensation for the land of village Zanzarda is accepted, it cannot be said that the compensation for the land of village in question at Chobari deserves to be reduced or in the alternative, the same deserves to be interfered with. It also appears that the attention of this Court is not brought by showing that in respect of land of village Zanzarda, the compensation was awarded at Rs. 60 per sq. mtr. Further, the land at village Chobari, which is under acquisition in the present case, is adjoining to the land at village Zanzarda and not to village Sabalpur. In view of the aforesaid peculiar circumstances, we find that the contention as sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant for interference with the award passed by the Reference Court does not deserve to be accepted. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is meritless. Hence, dismissed. No order as to costs. The compensation if not deposited, shall be deposited within eight weeks from the receipt of the order of this Court.