Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 656 (GUJ)

GENERAL MANAGER v. PUNAJI VELAJI THAKOR

2014-06-16

JAYANT M.PATEL, Z.K.SAIYED

body2014
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) 1. As all First Appeals are pertaining to acquisition of the land at Village : Bhoyan Rathod and at Village : Julund and the compensation is to be awarded under Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), they are being considered simultaneously. 2. The common facts are that all lands have been acquired under the Act for the project of O.N.G.C. 3. In First Appeal No.1808 of 2007 the lands are located at Village : Julund. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 9.12.1999. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 8.12.2000. The award was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer and he awarded compensation at Rs.21/-per sq.mtr. The land owners/original claimants, as were not satisfied with the compensation, raised the dispute under the Act, which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication in Land Reference Case Nos.237 to 238 of 2002. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the reference, awarded compensation at Rs.179.50, but as the amount of Rs.21/- per sq.mtr., was already paid, directed additional compensation at Rs.158.50 per sq. mtr., plus the statutory benefit and interest as ordered in the award. 4. In First Appeal No.1929 of 2007 the land is located at Village : Bhoyan Rathod. The notification under Section of the Act was published on 12.1.1998. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 11.5.2000. The award was passed under Section 11 of the Act on 27.11.2001 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.14/-per sq.mtr. As the land owners/original claimants were not satisfied with the compensation, they raised the dispute under the Act for adjudication in Land Reference Case No.80 of 2002. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the reference, awarded compensation at Rs.330/-per sq.mtr., plus statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the award. 5. In First Appeal No.2860 of 2007 the land is located at Village : Bhoyan Rathod. The notification under Section of the Act was published on 11.11.1998. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 24.11.1999 and thereafter the award was passed under Section 11 whereby the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.24/-per sq.mtr. 5. In First Appeal No.2860 of 2007 the land is located at Village : Bhoyan Rathod. The notification under Section of the Act was published on 11.11.1998. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 24.11.1999 and thereafter the award was passed under Section 11 whereby the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.24/-per sq.mtr. The original claimants/land owners, as were not satisfied with the compensation, raised the dispute under the Act, which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication in Land Reference Case No.82 of 2002. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the reference, awarded compensation at Rs.330 minus the amount of Rs.24 already paid. Hence net Rs.306/-per sq.mtr., plus the statutory benefit and interest came to be awarded as mentioned in the award. Under the circumstances the present appeal before this Court. 6. In the group of First Appeal Nos.3312 to 3316 of 2007 the lands are located at Village : Julund. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 14.3.2000. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 21.1.2001. The award was passed under Section 11 of the Act on 30.8.2001 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.20/- per sq.mtr. The original claimants/land owners raised the dispute under the Act for additional compensation, which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Land Reference Case Nos.144, 145, 147 and 148 of 2001. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the reference, awarded compensation at Rs.179.50 minus the amount of Rs.20/- already paid as compensation. Hence, the net amount awarded was Rs.159.50 per sq.mtr., plus the statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the award. 7. In the group of First Appeal Nos.1813 to 1817 of 2007 the lands are located at village Julund. The Notification No.4 was published on 9.12.1999 and the notification No.6 was published on 8.12.2000. In the Award, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.26/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case No.121 of 2003 to 126 of 2003. In the Award, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.26/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case No.121 of 2003 to 126 of 2003. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.179.50, out of which, as Rs.26/-was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.153.50 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the Award. 8. In First Appeal No. 4418 of 2006 the lands are located at village Bhoyan Rathod. The Notification No.4 was published on 8.6.1999 and the notification No.6 was published on 31.12.1999. In the Award dated 25.7.2001, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.22/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case No. 10 of 2002. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.193.00, out of which, as Rs.22/-was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.171.00 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the Award. 9. In First Appeal No. 1898 of 2007 the lands are located at village Julund. The Notification No.4 was published on 9.12.1999 and the notification No.6 was published on 8.12.2000. In the Award dated 7.9.2001, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.25/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation, which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case No. 154 of 2001. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.179.50, out of which, as Rs.25/-was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.154.50 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and the interest as mentioned in the Award. 10. In First Appeal No. 1900 of 2007 the facts are, more or less, the same as that of above referred First Appeal No.1898 of 2007 inasmuch as the lands are located at village Julund and the date of Notification No.4 of the Act is the same. 10. In First Appeal No. 1900 of 2007 the facts are, more or less, the same as that of above referred First Appeal No.1898 of 2007 inasmuch as the lands are located at village Julund and the date of Notification No.4 of the Act is the same. The only change is that the notification under Section 6 of the Act, in the present case, was published on was published on 5.8.2000 and the Award under Section 11 was passed on 27.9.2001 and the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.26/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case No. 153 of 2001. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.179.50, out of which as Rs.26/-was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.153.50 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the Award. 11. In First Appeal No. 4064 of 2007 the lands are located at village Bhoyan Rathod. The Notification No.4 was published on 30.6.1999 and the notification No.6 was published on 6.8.2000. In the Award dated 17.10.2001, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.24/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation, which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case No. 155 of 2001. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.175.00, out of which as Rs.24/-was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.151.00 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the Award. 12. In First Appeal No. 4661 of 2007 the lands are located at village Julund. The Notification No.4 was published on 9.12.1999 and the notification No.6 was published on 5.8.2000. In the Award dated 27.9.2001, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.26/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation, which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case No. 153 of 2001. In the Award dated 27.9.2001, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.26/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation, which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case No. 153 of 2001. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.179.50, out of which as Rs.26/-was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.153.50 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the Award. 13. In First Appeal Nos. 4818 & 4819 of 2007 the lands are located at village Julund. The Notification No.4 was published on 17.12.1993 and the notification No.6 was published on 8.12.2000. In the Award dated 3.6.2002, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.21/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation, which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case Nos. 237 & 238 of 2002. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.179.50, out of which as Rs.21/- was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.158.50 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the Award. 14. In First Appeal Nos. 5007 to 5009 of 2007 the lands are located at village Bhoyan Rathod. The Notification No.4 was published on 08.06.1999 and the notification No.6 was published on 15.02.2000. In the Award dated 7.3.2002, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.14/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation, which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case Nos. 118 to 120 of 2002. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.346.00, out of which as Rs.14/- was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.332.00 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the Award. 15. In First Appeal Nos. 5022 to 5024 of 2007 the lands are located at village Bhoyan Rathod. The Notification No.4 was published on 08.06.1999 and the notification No.6 was published on 09.03.2000. 15. In First Appeal Nos. 5022 to 5024 of 2007 the lands are located at village Bhoyan Rathod. The Notification No.4 was published on 08.06.1999 and the notification No.6 was published on 09.03.2000. In the Award dated 16.01.2002, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.18/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation, which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case Nos. 115 to 117 of 2002. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.346.00, out of which as Rs.18/- was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.328.00 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the Award. 16. In First Appeal No. 199 of 2008 the lands are located at village Bhoyan Rathod. The Notification No.4 was published on 08.06.1999 and the notification No.6 was published on 31.12.1999. In the Award dated 25.07.2001, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.22/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case Nos. 10 of 2002. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.199.00, out of which, as Rs.22/-was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.171.00 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the Award. 17. In First Appeal No.175 of 2012 the lands are located at village Julund. The Notification No.4 was published on 09.12.1999 and the notification No.6 was published on 08.12.2000. In the Award dated 07.09.2001, passed under Section 11, the Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.25/-per sq. mtr. The claimants raised the dispute against the compensation which came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication, being Land Reference Case Nos. 154 of 2001. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.179.50, out of which as Rs.25/- was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.154.50 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the Award. 18. 154 of 2001. The Reference court, at the conclusion of reference, awarded compensation at Rs.179.50, out of which as Rs.25/- was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the net amount of Rs.154.50 was awarded as additional compensation with statutory benefit and interest as mentioned in the Award. 18. We may also record that as per the Board, the Cross Objections are filed being No.72 of 2011 to 76 of 2011 by O.N.G.C., in the First Appeal Nos.1813 to 1817 of 2007 for reduction of the amount of compensation. 19. The respondents of First Appeal No.1929 of 2007 have preferred Cross Objection (St) No. 6 of 2014 with Civil Application No.11771 of 2014 for condonation of delay of 2453 days. However, neither any steps are undertaken by the applicant to pursue for application for condonation of delay, nor any requisite Court fee is paid in the Cross Objection. 20. It may be recorded that Civil Applications No. 5810 of 2007 to 5814 of 2007 in First Appeals No.1813 to 1817 of 2007 have been preferred by the original claimants for production of additional evidence. In the same manner Civil Applications No.5815 with 5817 of 2007 in First Appeals No.1808 & 1809 of 2007 have been preferred by the original claimants for production of additional evidence. Civil Applications No.5818 of 2007 in First Appeal No.1900 of 2007 with Civil Application No. 5819 of 2007 in First Appeal No.1898 of 2007 have been preferred by the original claimants for production of additional evidence. Civil Application No.8326 of 2008 with Civil Application No.172 of 2014 and Civil Application No.173 of 2014 in First Appeal No. 199 of 2008 have been preferred for production of additional evidence. In the same manner Civil Application No.1181 of 2014 in First Appeal No.1929 of 2007 has been preferred for production of additional evidence by the original claimants. 21. We have heard Mr. Ajay Mehta and Mr. R.R. Marshal, learned Counsel appearing for O.N.G.C. in the respective Appeals – acquiring Body. We have heard Mr. Yatin Soni with Mr. Hitesh Patel and Mr. Jayesh Patel for Mr. A.J. Patel, learned Counsel for original claimants – land owners in all the Appeals. We have heard Mr. Dhaval Jayswal as well as Mr. Rahul Dave, learned AGPs appearing for Special Land Acquisition Officer wherever he has been joined as party. We have considered the records and proceedings. Yatin Soni with Mr. Hitesh Patel and Mr. Jayesh Patel for Mr. A.J. Patel, learned Counsel for original claimants – land owners in all the Appeals. We have heard Mr. Dhaval Jayswal as well as Mr. Rahul Dave, learned AGPs appearing for Special Land Acquisition Officer wherever he has been joined as party. We have considered the records and proceedings. 22. As observed by us herein above, in all group of matters, the lands are located at village Bhoyan Rathod or at village Julund, as the case may be. The learned Counsel appearing for both the sides conceded to the position that the principal issue which may be required to be decided by the Court would be the proper market value for the purpose of compensation for the land located at village Bhoyan Rathod and after the valuation is made by the Court for the land located at village Bhoyan Rathod, the valuation may be made for the land located at village Julund since the boundary of village Bhoyan Rathod is touching to village Saij as well as Kalol city and thereafter village Julund is located. 23. The perusal of the Judgment of the Reference Court, which is subject matter of the present Appeals, shows that initially for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the land at village Bhoyan Rathod, the Reference Court relied upon the Award passed for acquisition of the land located at village Saij, which is one of the villages whose boundary is touching to village Bhoyan Rathod and thereafter the valuation is made of the land located at village Julund. However, subsequently when the earlier decision of the Reference Court for the acquisition of the land at village Bhoyan Rathod was relied upon, on behalf of the original claimants, it was contended that the land of village Bhoyan Rathod is also touching to Kalol city, which is a developed town and, therefore, the compensation awarded for the land of Kalol town should also be considered. The Reference Court has not made detailed discussion as to why its earlier decision for acquisition of the land at village Bhoyan Rathod only should not be considered, but the Reference Court has, by relying upon the earlier decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land at Kalol city, considered and the higher valuation is made of the land at village Bhoyan Rathod. However, so far as village Julund is concerned, the Reference Court has gone by its earlier decision for acquisition of the land of village Bhoyan Rathod. 24. The learned Counsel, appearing for O.N.G.C. acquiring body, contended that the decision of the reference Court for higher valuation of the land located at village Bhoyan Rathod is erroneous and the Reference Court ought to have gone by its earlier decision for acquisition of the land at village Bhoyan Rathod only since the acquisition was during the same period, whereas the learned Counsel appearing for the original claimants contended that the higher valuation made by the Reference Court for the land at village Bhoyan Rathod should also be the basis for the compensation in respect of the land located at village Bhoyan Rathod and it was further contended that the higher valuation made by the Reference Court for the land at village Bhoyan Rathod should also be the basis for the compensation for the land located at village Julund also. It was further contended that the Reference Court has considered the aspects of valuation of the land for acquisition of the land of Kalol which had taken place in the year 1997 and in those references, the Reference Court has directed for additional compensation at Rs.1004/- per sq. meter for the acquisition of land at Kalol and the same should also be considered by this Court for the purpose of arriving at the market value of the land of village Bhoyan Rathod and thereafter based on such valuation the compensation should also be considered for the land of village Julund. 25. It was submitted that in order to see that the higher valuation made for the land of village Bhoyan Rathod as well as the higher valuation of the land at Kalol are brought on record, the applications have been made for additional evidence on behalf of the original claimants in certain First Appeals. 26. Whereas, on behalf of O.N.G.C. -acquiring Body, the learned Counsel submitted that the decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land at Kalol, wherein the additional compensation at Rs.1004/-per sq. 26. Whereas, on behalf of O.N.G.C. -acquiring Body, the learned Counsel submitted that the decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land at Kalol, wherein the additional compensation at Rs.1004/-per sq. meter was awarded, is challenged before this Court and the Appeals are pending and, therefore, such decision of the Reference Court may not be relied upon at all, nor may be considered by this Court and it was also submitted that all the original claimants have not preferred Cross Objections for enhancement of the compensation in the Appeal, preferred by the O.N.G.C. for reduction of the compensation. Therefore, even if this Court is inclined to award higher compensation, relief may be restricted to the original claimants, who have preferred Appeal against the Award passed by the Reference Court and/or who have preferred Cross Objection against the Award passed by the Reference Court, but not to those original claimants who have not preferred Cross Objections or who have preferred cross objections, but no delay is condoned in the said cross objections nor any Court fees have been paid in the said Cross Objections. 27. We may record the broad principles that for the purpose of finding out the appropriate market value of the land, the three major aspects may be required to be considered. One would be by way of sale instance of a comparable land, another is capitalized valuation based on yield method and third is the compensation awarded in other land acquisition cases of the land located at the very village or of the nearby area. Out of the aforesaid 3 major aspects, in the present case, there were no sale instance brought on record of the comparable land nor any satisfactory evidence is produced before the Reference Court for the yield method to find out the market value. The learned Counsel for the original claimants have also not addressed the Court on the aspect of yield method so as to arrive at the capitalized value of the land and, therefore, we find that none of the aforesaid two aspects may be required to be considered in the present group of Appeals. The only aspect which may be required to be considered by this Court in the present group of Appeals would be the compensation awarded of the nearby land by the Reference Court or by this Court. 28. The only aspect which may be required to be considered by this Court in the present group of Appeals would be the compensation awarded of the nearby land by the Reference Court or by this Court. 28. Learned Counsel, appearing for the original claimants, did contend that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court for the nearby land can be treated at part with sale instance for the comparable land. He submitted that as per settled legal position if more than one sale instances are available for the comparable land of the same type, the Court would opt for the higher amount of sale instance. He submitted that same principle should apply even when the compensation has been awarded by the Reference Court for nearby land and the higher valuation should be considered for the purpose of awarding compensation and not the lowest or less than that. 29. We are not at all impressed by the submission made by the learned Counsel for the original claimants. Such contention is misconceived and also on ill-premise inasmuch as the sale instance means voluntary transaction between the buyer and the seller which cannot be equated with the valuation arrived at by the Reference Court and the simple reason is that the value mentioned in the sale instance can be accepted with the evidence of voluntary buyer and voluntary seller and such is also required to be appreciated in light of the liability of the stamp duty to be paid based on the valuation mentioned in the Sale Deed. Such cannot be equated with the compensation fixed by the Reference Court. However, if the valuation is made by the Government for the allotment of any waste land, such may stand on a different footing and different consideration. But, the sale instance between the voluntary buyer and the voluntary seller cannot be equated with the market value assessed by the Reference Court. Therefore, the contention that the higher valuation made by the Reference Court be treated at par with the sale instance and to consider the highest amount cannot be accepted. Under the circumstances, the contention fails. 30. But, the sale instance between the voluntary buyer and the voluntary seller cannot be equated with the market value assessed by the Reference Court. Therefore, the contention that the higher valuation made by the Reference Court be treated at par with the sale instance and to consider the highest amount cannot be accepted. Under the circumstances, the contention fails. 30. Learned Counsel for the original claimants also contended that when it is a matter of considering the compensation awarded by the Reference Court and/or by this Court, it is true that the compensation awarded by this Court would assume higher value, but at the same time, this Court may also be required to consider the compensation awarded by the Reference Court in respect of other acquisition of the nearby land. He submitted that if the Reference Court has awarded compensation of a higher amount for Kalol city, the same may be considered by this Court in the present Appeals. 31.Whereas, the learned Counsel appearing for O.N.G.C. -acquiring body, contended that the Reference Court ought to have gone by its earlier decision in the case of Bhoyan Rathod and ought not to have made departure on a mere ground that for acquisition of the land at Kalol city, the valuation was made at the higher amount, that too, by ignoring its earlier decision for the acquisition of the land at village Bhoyan Rathod only. It was also submitted that Kalol is the town and a municipal area whereas village Bhoyan Rathod is a village, out side the municipal area of Kalol city. It was submitted that even if the municipal boundary of Kalol city are touching to village Bhoyan Rathod to some extent, the same cannot be the blanket basis for arriving at the valuation of the land at village Bhoyan Rathod. It was submitted that, in any case, even if the comparison was to be made for the compensation awarded for the land located at Kalol city, the appropriate deduction was required to be considered by the Reference Court, which has not been considered. It was submitted that, in any case, even if the comparison was to be made for the compensation awarded for the land located at Kalol city, the appropriate deduction was required to be considered by the Reference Court, which has not been considered. It was further submitted that the land located at village Julund would call for further deduction since Julund is not located at high-way like that of village Bhoyan Rathod and further no boundaries of village Bhoyan Rathod are touching to village Julund, but they are touching to village Saij and other villages and as for acquisition of land of village Saij the award was available, the same was initially rightly considered by the Reference Court and thereafter wrongly the departure has been made. 32.Before we consider the decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land located at Kalol City and/or at village Bhoyan Rathod, it deserves to be recorded that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court per se would not be binding to this Court and this Court may consider if any decision exist of this Court for the value of the land at the very village and/or the nearby village. 33. The aforesaid would lead us to examine the location of the land, the adjacent villages, the compensation awarded for the adjacent lands and the assessment of the market value. 34. Mr.Jayswal, learned AGP appearing for the Special Land Acquisition Officer, during the course of the hearing, has made available the revenue map of the village Bhoyan Rathod, which is a village where the lands are acquired. Further, as observed by us herein above, the question of assessment of the market value and the compensation shall be required to be decided at the first instance for Bhoyan Rathod. Such may apply for the acquisition of all the land at Village Bhoyan Rathod and thereafter, the assessment of the market value may be required to be undertaken for the land located at Village Julund, which is near to Village Bhoyan Rathod. 35. The revenue map shows that Bhoyan Rathod is surrounded by various villages namely; Village Titoda, Village Sherta and Village Saij as well as Village Parsodiya, City (Kasbe) Kalol – Dhamasan. 35. The revenue map shows that Bhoyan Rathod is surrounded by various villages namely; Village Titoda, Village Sherta and Village Saij as well as Village Parsodiya, City (Kasbe) Kalol – Dhamasan. In respect of Village Asodiya, Dhamasan, Titoda and Sherta, no evidence was produced before the Reference Court, nor is before this Court for any compensation awarded by the Reference Court prior to the acquisition. The only evidence, which was produced before the Reference Court was for the acquisition of the land for the compensation awarded for Village Saij and Kalol City. The map further shows that a small portion of the boundary of Village Bhoyan Rathod is touching to Kalol City, otherwise the remaining major boundary is touching to various villages, including Village Saij. 36. The Reference Court initially for the assessment of the market value of the land at Bhoyan Rathod relied upon the decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land at Village Saij, which is one of the Villages, whose boundary is touching to Village Bhoyan Rathod. The said decision is in Land Reference Case No.865 of 1998 and a copy of the same is produced by the original claimant in First Appeal No.199 of 2008. The perusal of the said judgement shows that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the said case for the land of Village Saij was issued on 29.12.1995 and further the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at Rs.20/-per sq. mtr. The Reference Court, after considering its earlier decision of this Court in First Appeal No.1453 of 2002 found that the lands were acquired in the said case, by Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 8.7.1993 and additional compensation was fixed at Rs.136/- per. sq. mtr. Considering the appreciation at the rate of 10% per annum from 8.7.1993, the Court found that appropriate gross compensation should be Rs.163/-per sq. mtr., out of which as the amount of Rs.20/-per sq. mtr., was already awarded as compensation, additional compensation at Rs.143/-per. sq. mtr., plus statutory benefits were awarded. The aforesaid decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land at Village Saij has been considered by the Reference Court for the acquisition of the land at Village Bhoyan Rathod. mtr., out of which as the amount of Rs.20/-per sq. mtr., was already awarded as compensation, additional compensation at Rs.143/-per. sq. mtr., plus statutory benefits were awarded. The aforesaid decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land at Village Saij has been considered by the Reference Court for the acquisition of the land at Village Bhoyan Rathod. The Reference Court found that the fertility of the land located at Village Bhoyan Rathod would be more or less as that of the land at Village Saij and thereafter considered the appreciation for the time gap in the Notification under Section 4 of the Act and then arrived at the market value at Rs.171/-per sq. mtr. But it appears that in First Appeal No.199 of 2009 arising from the Land Reference Case No.10/2002, the Reference Court committed apparent error to the extent that it ought to have considered that the gross compensation was fixed at Rs.163/-, which could be considered as a market value for the acquisition of the land at Village Saij, wherein the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 29.12.1995. However, it erroneously considered the net compensation awarded for the acquisition of the land at Village Saij. 37. The learned Counsel for the original claimant is right to the extent that after taking basis of Rs.163/-per sq. mtr., in a case wherein the Notification under Section 4 was issued in December 1995, the Reference was required to consider appreciation for three-and-a-half years (3½ years) i.e. Rs.57.05 being appreciation and accordingly the market value could be assessed at Rs.220/-per sq. mtr., and not Rs.171/-per sq. mtr., for the assessment of the gross compensation. Under these circumstances, it appears that if the Reference Court’s earlier decision for acquisition of the land at Village Saij, which was confirmed by this Court was to be considered, the market value for the land at Village Bhoyan Rathod could be assessed at Rs.220/-per sq. mtr. 38. In the another set of matters for the land located at the very Village Bhoyan Rathod, Reference Court has relied upon the compensation awarded for the land located at Kalol City. One of the matters of such type is the Land Acquisition Reference Case No.82 of 2002, which is falling part of the present group. mtr. 38. In the another set of matters for the land located at the very Village Bhoyan Rathod, Reference Court has relied upon the compensation awarded for the land located at Kalol City. One of the matters of such type is the Land Acquisition Reference Case No.82 of 2002, which is falling part of the present group. The judgement of the Reference Court shows that the decision of the Reference Court in earlier matter for assessment of the market value of the land at Village Bhoyan Rathod was relied upon and simultaneously the decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land of Kalol City was also relied upon, but the Reference Court did not consider the aspect that its earlier decision was binding to it or in alternative, without there being any reasons recorded, the earlier decision of the Reference Court for the acquisition of the land at Village Bhoyan Rathod could not be departed. The Reference Court proceeded to consider another decision of the Reference Court for awarding of compensation for the acquisition of the land at Kalol City. The perusal of the said decision shows that the Reference Court found that for the acquisition of the land of Kalol, which is adjacent to the land of Village Bhoyan Rathod, the compensation at Rs.165/-per sq. mtr., was awarded by the Reference Court but in the said case the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the year 1989, whereas in the present case, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act for the land of Village Bhoyan Rathod was published in the year 1999, appreciation at the rate of 10% per annum was considered and thereafter the market value was assessed for the land at Village Bhoyan Rathod at Rs.330 per mtr. As such, if the acquisition was too old, such decision ought not to have been relied upon by the Reference Court and the said aspect may assume relevance in view of the peculiar circumstances that the acquisition and the compensation awarded for the recent past of last 3 ½ years for the adjacent village was available. As such, if the acquisition was too old, such decision ought not to have been relied upon by the Reference Court and the said aspect may assume relevance in view of the peculiar circumstances that the acquisition and the compensation awarded for the recent past of last 3 ½ years for the adjacent village was available. Even if the said aspect is leniently viewed taking into consideration that the boundary of City Kalol at the relevant time was touching to the boundary of village Bhoyan Rathod, then also in the year 1999, which is the year of acquisition, the development of Kalol City and the position of village Bhoyan Rathod as village could not have been ignored. Not only that, but Kalol City and the land located within Kasbe Kalol, could be said as having better facilities in comparison to a village, which is located adjacent to City limits. At this stage, we may refer to the decision of this Court, in the case of State of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Thakor Fatehsing Somaji in First Appeal No.2794 of 2009 and allied matters decided on 1.4.2011, wherein it was observed that whenever any village boundaries are touching to any municipality limits there would be difference in the market value of the land located within the said city or municipal limits than the land located within the village limits. In the said decision, this Court observed at paragraph 7 as under:- “7. In both the matters, the Reference Court has lost sight of the important aspect that Unjha is a municipal area whereas Brahmanwada is a gram panchayat area. In a case where the valuation is made of the land which is falling in the municipal area, it cannot be compared at para with the land situated at village area even if the boundary of municipal area and the boundary of the said village area may be touching to one another. The reason is that there would be basic difference in the infrastructural facilities and the amenities in the municipal area in comparison to the gram panchayat area. For municipal area, there will be facilities of water, light, transportation, road, school, etc., which may not be available in the gram panchayat area. The reason is that there would be basic difference in the infrastructural facilities and the amenities in the municipal area in comparison to the gram panchayat area. For municipal area, there will be facilities of water, light, transportation, road, school, etc., which may not be available in the gram panchayat area. Further, even if it is considered that since the area is adjacent to each other, there was more development in gram panchayat area, which is adjacent to the municipal area, it appears to us that if it is to be examined for the purpose of tracing the appropriate valuation, such valuation will be minimum 30% less in comparison to the value of the land in the municipal area. It appears that the Reference Court has totally lost sight of the said aspect and has considered the valuation of the land at par with Unjha which is a municipal area. The learned counsel for the original claimants is also not in a position to show any evidence to the contrary save and except that the village of Brahmanwada is touching to Unjha city. In our view, would not make much difference as observed earlier and the difference of valuation by 30% at least would continue even after the boundary of the village attached to the municipal area since the basic difference of various facilities and infrastructure and development between the municipal area and the gram panchayat area would continue.” 39. The aforesaid shows that there will be at least difference of 30% in the market value of the land. To say in other words, the land located in village, whose boundaries are touching to the municipality limits of the adjacent city will be less by 30%. If 30% deduction is considered, such amount would be Rs.99/- and if deducted from Rs.330/-the net amount may come to Rs.231/-per sq. mtr. In any case, it will not be Rs.330/-as assessed by the Reference Court. We need to keep in mind two peculiar circumstances; one is that the majority of the boundaries of village Bhoyan Rathod are touching to various other villages and small portion of the boundary is touching to Kalol City. The another aspect is that boundary of village Saij is also touching to the boundary of village Bhoyan Rathod. We need to keep in mind two peculiar circumstances; one is that the majority of the boundaries of village Bhoyan Rathod are touching to various other villages and small portion of the boundary is touching to Kalol City. The another aspect is that boundary of village Saij is also touching to the boundary of village Bhoyan Rathod. In respect of the decision of the Reference Court for awarding compensation for village Saij, the same was of the recent past of 3½ years back only and further the said decision was confirmed by this Court in the proceedings of First Appeal. Hence, it would be more rational to rely upon the decision of the Reference Court for awarding of compensation for village Saij, which has been confirmed by this Court and which is of the recent past. As observed by us herein above, if the decision of the Reference Court for village Saij is considered, which has been confirmed by this Court, the market value of the land for June 1998 would come to Rs.220/-per sq. mtr., whereas if the decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land of Kalol City is considered, it would come to Rs.230/-per sq. mtr. Examining the matter in either way and if the valuation is to be properly made, it would be rational to assess market value at Rs.220/-per sq. mtr., for the acquisition of the land at Village Bhoyan Rathod. 40. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, we find that even if the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the original claimant is considered that the decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land of Kalol City and compensation awarded in the said matter be considered, would not assume much importance, inasmuch as the difference would be only Rs.10/-per sq. mtr. But as observed by us herein above, since the decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land at village Saij is of a recent past and is confirmed by this Court, we find it appropriate to rely upon the decision for the acquisition of the land at Village Saij, instead the decision of the Reference Court for acquisition of the land of Kalol City, which is of ten years back and for which there is no decision of this Court for confirmation of the amount of compensation. 41. 41. The another decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the original claimant for acquisition of the land at Kalol City, wherein the compensation has been fixed at Rs.1,004/-pr sq. mtr., by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.320/2012 and allied matters, in our view, cannot be considered at this stage, because the appeals are preferred against the said decision of the Reference Court and those appeals are admitted. Further, in the case of acquisition of the land for the village Saij, this Court has already confirmed the decision. When this Court is confronted with the situation of one decision of the Reference Court and another decision of the Reference Court, which has been confirmed by this Court, it would be appropriate to consider and rely upon the decision of the Reference Court, which is confirmed by this Court and not to consider and rely upon the decision against which appeals are preferred and the same are pending before this Court. Hence, we find that the said contention is of no help to the original claimants. 42. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, we find that even if the additional evidence as sought to be produced on behalf of the original claimant by the respective applicants are considered, the same would not ultimately affect the decision of this Court for appropriate assessment of the market value of the land. Hence, no useful purpose would be served in allowing record to be burdened and then to decide the appeal at later stage. 43. We may now proceed to consider the aspect of valuation of the land at village Julund. As per the evidence on record and the revenue map shows that boundaries of village Julund are not touching to the boundaries of village Bhoyan Rathod. The village Bhoyan Rathod is additionally located on highway, whereas for village Julund the location is different. It is true that village Julund is located nearby village Bhoyan Rathod, but as boundaries are not touching to one another, the distance factor may be required to be considered coupled with the aspect that the land at village Bhoyan Rathod are better located in comparison to the land at village Julund. It is true that village Julund is located nearby village Bhoyan Rathod, but as boundaries are not touching to one another, the distance factor may be required to be considered coupled with the aspect that the land at village Bhoyan Rathod are better located in comparison to the land at village Julund. Considering the facts and circumstances and the evidence on record, we find that as village Bhoyan Rathod is better located, there will be at least difference of 10% of market value of the land of village Julund. To say in other words, the market value of village Julund will be less by 10% in comparison to the market value of village Bhoyan Rathod. As observed by us herein above, appropriate market value for the land of Village Bhoyan Rathod in June 1999 is Rs.220/-per sq. mtr., and accordingly if 10% amount is deducted the market value of the land of village Julund would come to Rs.198/-per sq. mtr. Hence, we find it proper to assess the market value for the purpose of gross compensation at Rs.198/-per sq. mtr., for the acquisition of the land at village Julund in a case where notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued in June 1999. 44. We may state that the principles of appreciation as has been found by the Reference Court is at the rate of 10% per annum. There is difference in the time gap of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the respective matters. Taking the basis of the market value at Rs.220/-per sq. mtr., for the land located at village Bhoyan Rathod and of Rs.198 for the land located at village Julund, both in the month of June 1999, appreciation and/or reduction, as the case may be, at the rate of 10% per annum would be required to be considered and thereafter the market value can be assessed for the purpose of gross compensation. Out of the amount of gross compensation, the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer would be required to be deducted and the net amount would stand as additional compensation, which could be awarded. 45. Out of the amount of gross compensation, the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer would be required to be deducted and the net amount would stand as additional compensation, which could be awarded. 45. We may record that if there is marginal difference up to time gap of six months, either prior to June 1999 or post June 1999, the same may not be required to be further considered for addition or deduction of compensation, but if the period is more than six months, it would be appropriate to consider the same. 46. Taking into consideration the aforesaid observation and discussion, we find that the gross compensation and the net compensation for the respective appellants, whose lands are located at village Bhoyan Rathod, as under:- Sr No FA Number LAR No. Village Section 4 Notific ation Gross Comp. Awarded by SPLAO Net Additio nal Comp. 1 4418 of 2006 199 of 2008 (Claimants’ Appeal) 10 of 2002 10 of 2002 Bhoyan Rathod 8.6.99 8.6.99 220.00 220.00 22.00 22.00 198.00 198.00 2 1929 of 2007 80 of 2002 Bhoyan Rathod 12/11/9 8 220.00 14.00 206.00 3 4064 of 2007 (Claimants’ Appeal) 155 of 2001 Bhoyan Rathod 30.6.99 220.00 24.00 196.00 4 5007 to 118 to Bhoyan 08/06/9 220.00 14.00 206.00 5009 of 2007 120 of Rathod 9 2002 5 5022 to 115 to Bhoyan 08/06/9 220.00 18.00 202.00 5024 of 2007 117 of Rathod 9 2002 6 2860 of 2007 82 2002 of Bhoyan Rathod 11/11/9 8 220 24 196 The gross compensation and the net compensation for the respective appellants, whose lands are located at village Julund, are as under:- Sr No FA Number LAR No. Village Section 4 Notific ation Gross Comp. Awarded by SPLAO Net Additio nal Comp. Awarded by SPLAO Net Additio nal Comp. 1 3312 to 3316 of 2007 144 to 148 of 2001 Julund 14.3.20 00 179.50 20.00 159.50 2 4661 of 2007 153 of 2002 Julund 09/12/9 9 198.00 26.00 172.00 3 1898 and 1900 of 2007 (Claimants’ Appeals) 154 of 2001 153 of 2001 Julund 09/12/9 9 198.00 25.00 26.00 173.00 172.00 4 1813 to 1817 of 2007 (Claimants’ Appeals) 121 to 125 of 2003 Julund 09/12/9 9 198.00 26.00 172.00 5 4818 to 4819 of 2007 1808 and 1809 of 2007 (Claimants’ Appeals) 237 to 238 of 2002 237 to 238 of 2002 Julund Julund 09/12/9 9 09/12/9 9 198.00 198.00 21.00 21.00 177.00 177.00 6 175 of 2012 154 of 2001 Julund 09/12/9 9 198 25 173.5 47. The other benefits awarded by the Reference Court of increase in the compensation under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act are by way of statutory benefits and we find that no interference is called for. However, on the aspect of interest, the learned Counsel appearing for the original claimants could not justifiably show that the interest would run from the date of passing of the award under Section 11 of the Act, subject to the applicability of 9% per annum of first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year(s), but it would not be prior to the award since the possession as per the acquisition would be after the award and for the earlier period, as stated by the learned Counsel for both the sides, the rental compensation was already paid. Under these circumstances, we find that appropriate clarification and the modification deserves to be made to the award passed by the Reference Court. Hence, ordered accordingly. 48. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, it is held that the original claimants/land owners shall be entitled to the additional compensation as mentioned in Table-I and II shown at paragraph 45 for their respective land. Hence, ordered accordingly. 48. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, it is held that the original claimants/land owners shall be entitled to the additional compensation as mentioned in Table-I and II shown at paragraph 45 for their respective land. The original claimants shall also be entitled to the statutory benefits under Section 23(1-A) and Section 23(2) of the Act for increase in the additional compensation and solatium respectively on the aforesaid principal amount of compensation, but the original owners and land owners shall also be entitled to the interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year and 15% per annum for the subsequent year(s) from the date of award until the amount of compensation is paid or deposited with the Reference Court. 49. The judgment and award of the Reference Court shall stand modified to the aforesaid extent. All the appeals shall stand disposed of accordingly. 50. As the aspect of additional evidence and for enhancement of compensation is covered by the present decision, all the applications as well as cross-objections shall also stand disposed of accordingly. 51. We may record that the present decision shall apply in cases, for which appeals or cross- objections have been preferred by ONGC to the extent of reduction of compensation and in the cases of the claimants, who have prayed for enhancement of compensation by filing cross- objections, if any of the claimants has accepted the award and has not preferred any cross- objection for enhancement of the compensation by payment of Court fees or delay is not condoned they would not be entitled to the benefits of the present judgment, but they may resort to appropriate proceedings under Section 28(A) of the Act, if otherwise permissible in law. 52. Considering the facts and circumstances, it is observed and directed that in view of the present judgment, if the amount of compensation is not deposited or is yet to deposit, the same shall be deposited by the acquiring body, either directly or through the Special land Acquisition Officer with the Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the order of this Court.