Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1625 (GUJ)

Group General Manager, ONGC v. Visaji Maganji

2016-08-04

A.S.SUPEHIA, M.R.SHAH

body2016
JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and all these appeals are with respect to the lands acquired of Village Saij, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar, but as the lands are acquired on different points of time, all these appeals are heard together and decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. FIRST APPEAL Nos. 598-609/2014 2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalol-learned Reference Court, passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 217-228/2012, by which, the learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said references and has awarded additional compensation of Rs. 154.90/- per sq. mtr. for the lands acquired of Village Saij, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar, for which notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (the Act) was published and issued on 23.01.1996, original opponent No. 2, the acquiring body-ONGC, has preferred the present appeals. FIRST APPEAL Nos. 947-950/2014 and 1100/2014 3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award dated 10.05.2013 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kalol-learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 641-645/2012, by which, the learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said references and has awarded additional compensation of Rs. 251.70 per sq.mtr. for the lands acquired of Village Saij, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar, original opponent No. 2-ONGC, the acquiring body, has preferred the present appeals. FIRST APPEAL Nos. 598-609/2014 4. That the lands situated at Village Saij, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar, came to be acquired under the provisions of the Act for the public purpose of the acquiring body-ONGC. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 23.01.1996. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award under Section 11 of the Act determining and awarding compensation @ Rs. 18/- per sq.mtr. At the instance of the original claimants the references under Section 18 of the Act were made to learned District Court, Gandhinagar, which were numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 217-228/2012. By the impugned common judgment and award the learned Reference Court has determined the compensation @ Rs. 172.90/- per sq.mtr. and after deducting Rs. 18/- per sq.mtr. as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the learned Reference Court has awarded additional compensation of Rs. 154.90/- per sq.mtr. By the impugned common judgment and award the learned Reference Court has determined the compensation @ Rs. 172.90/- per sq.mtr. and after deducting Rs. 18/- per sq.mtr. as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the learned Reference Court has awarded additional compensation of Rs. 154.90/- per sq.mtr. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 217-228/2012, the acquiring body-ONGC has preferred the present First Appeal Nos. 598-609/2012. FIRST APPEAL Nos. 947-950/2014 and 1100/2014 5. The lands situated at Village Saij, Tal. Kalol, Dist. Gandhinagar, came to be acquired under the provisions of the Act for public purpose-ONGC. Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published and issued on 15.04.2000 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was published 03.05.2001. That the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer determined the market price of the lands acquired at Rs. 20/- per sq.mtr. by award under Section 11 of the Act dated 12.02.2002. That as the original claimants were not satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer, at their instance, references under Section 18 of the Act were made, which were registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 641-645/2012. That by the impugned common judgment and award dated 10.05.2013 the learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said references and has awarded additional compensation of Rs. 251.70 per sq.mtr., over and above the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Special Land Acquisition Officer. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, original opponent No. 2-ONGC, the acquiring body, has preferred the present First Appeal Nos. 947-950/2014 and First Appeal No. 1100/2014. 6. Today, when the present first appeals are taken up for final hearing Ms. Shivani Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants in First Appeal Nos. 598-609/2014, has vehemently submitted that with respect to the lands acquired of the very same village Saij, for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 08.07.1993, Division Bench of this Court by a detailed judgment and order passed in First Appeal No. 1468/2002 and allied first appeals has determined and awarded compensation @ Rs. 136/- per sq.mtr. 136/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that in the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act has been published and issued on 23.01.1996 and, therefore, giving 10% rise per year if the amount of compensation is considered, it cannot be said that the learned Reference Court has committed any error in awarding compensation @ Rs. 172.90/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 1468/2002 and allied first appeals has attained finality. Ms. Shivani Trivedi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, has submitted that as such the learned Reference Court has materially erred in not awarding benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, which is the statutory benefit. Therefore, it is submitted that as the same is statutory benefit, even without preferring any cross-objections/first appeals, the original claimants may be awarded and granted benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 7. Shri A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants in First Appeal Nos. 947-950/2014 and First Appeal No. 1100/2014, has submitted that even considering the amount of compensation awarded by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 1468/2002 and other allied first appeals, and as in the present case notification under Section 4 of the Act has been published and issued on 15.04.2000, considering the time gap of approximately seven years and giving 10% rise per year, the original claimants shall be entitled to Rs. 231.20 per sq.mtr. It is submitted that therefore, to the aforesaid only, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 641-645/2012 is required to be modified. Shri A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants, has submitted that as such the learned Reference Court has materially erred in not awarding benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, which is the statutory benefit. Therefore, it is submitted that as the same is statutory benefit, even without preferring any cross-objections/first appeals, the original claimants may be awarded and granted benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 8. Therefore, it is submitted that as the same is statutory benefit, even without preferring any cross-objections/first appeals, the original claimants may be awarded and granted benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 8. On the other hand, Shri Meena, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the acquiring body-ONGC, has submitted that while deciding First Appeal No. 1468/2002 and allied first appeals determining and awarding compensation for the lands acquired of village Saij, for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 08.07.1993, the Division Bench of this Court considered and relied upon the earlier award passed with respect to the lands acquired of the very village, but for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued in the year 1986. He has also relied upon decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 03.08.2015 in First Appeal No. 3015/2012 and allied first appeals, by which, the Division Bench confirmed the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court dated 31.03.2012 passed in Land Reference Case Nos. 725-729/2009, by which, the learned Reference Court awarded additional compensation @ Rs. 213/- per sq.mtr. for the lands acquired of the very village but for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 18.09.2000. 9. Heard the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 10. At the outset it is required to be noted that in First Appeal Nos. 598-609/2014, which is arising out of the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 217-228/2012 with respect to the lands acquired of Village Saij, for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 23.01.1996, the learned Reference Court has determined and awarded compensation @ Rs. 172.90/- per sq.mtr. for the lands acquired of very Village Saij, for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 08.07.1993, the Division Bench of this Court while delivering the judgment in First Appeal No. 1468/2002 and allied first appeals has determined and awarded compensation @ Rs. 136/- per sq.mtr. 172.90/- per sq.mtr. for the lands acquired of very Village Saij, for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 08.07.1993, the Division Bench of this Court while delivering the judgment in First Appeal No. 1468/2002 and allied first appeals has determined and awarded compensation @ Rs. 136/- per sq.mtr. May be, in the said judgment, the Division Bench of this Court might have considered the previous judgment and award with respect to the lands acquired of very village, for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 01.04.1986 the fact remains that while delivering the judgment and order in First Appeal No. 1468/2002 and allied first appeals with respect to the lands acquired of very Village Saij and for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 08.07.1993, the Division Bench had determined the market price as on 08.07.1993 @ Rs. 136/- per sq.mtr. and consequently had awarded the compensation. Considering 10% rise per year, and looking to the time gap of approximately two years and six months between the two notifications under Section 4 of the Act, in the present case (i.e. F.A. Nos. 598-609/2014), for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 23.01.1996 the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 170.20 per sq.mtr. By the impugned judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 217-228/2012 the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation @ Rs. 172.90 per sq.mtr. Thus, to the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court is required to be modified. 11. Now so far as First Appeal Nos. 947-950/2014 and First Appeal No. 1100/2014, which are arising out of the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 641-645/2012 are concerned, the lands acquired are of very Village Saij, but for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 15.04.2000 and the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation @ Rs. 641-645/2012 are concerned, the lands acquired are of very Village Saij, but for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 15.04.2000 and the learned Reference Court has awarded compensation @ Rs. 271.70 per sq.mtr., considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 1468/2002 and allied first appeals with respect to the lands acquired of Village Saij, but for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 08.07.1993, by which the Division Bench had determined and awarded compensation of Rs. 136/- per sq.mtr. Looking to the time gap of seven years and giving 10% rise per year for the lands acquired in the present case, for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 15.04.2000 the amount of compensation would come to Rs. 231.20 per sq.mtr. At this stage it is required to be noted that as such another Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 3015/2012 and allied first appeals, which have preferred by the original claimants against the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court awarding compensation @ Rs. 233/- per sq.mtr. with respect to the lands acquired of very village Saij, but for which notification under Section 4 of the Act was published and issued on 18.09.2000. Under the circumstances, considering the aforesaid decisions in First Appeal Nos. 947-950/2014 and First Appeal No. 1100/2014 the original claimants shall be entitled to the compensation of Rs. 231.20 per sq.mtr. To the aforesaid extent the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 641-645/2012 is required to be modified and the said appeals are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 12. 231.20 per sq.mtr. To the aforesaid extent the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 641-645/2012 is required to be modified and the said appeals are required to be partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. 12. Now so far as the submission and the request made by the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the original claimants to grant benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act though they have not preferred any cross-objections/first appeals is concerned, considering the decision in the case of Prahlad v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2010) 10 S.C.C. 458 and the recent decision dated 21.07.2016 of this Court in First Appeal No. 633/2014 and allied matters, as the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act is statutory benefit, the original claimants shall be entitled to the said benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act, though they have not filed any cross-objections/first appeals. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, First Appeal Nos. 598-609/2014 preferred by the acquiring body-ONGC are partly allowed and the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 217-228/2012 is hereby modified to the extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 170.20 per sq.mtr. with all other statutory benefits, which may be available under the Act, including the benefits under section 23(1-A) of the Act. However, it is clarified that the original claimants shall be entitled to the interest under Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking possession under Section 16 of the Act. 13. Also, in view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, First Appeal Nos. 947-950/2014 and First Appeal No. 1100/2014 are hereby partly allowed and the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 641-645/2012 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 231.20 per sq.mtr. with all other statutory benefits, which may be available under the Act, including the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. 641-645/2012 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is held that the original claimants shall be entitled to compensation @ Rs. 231.20 per sq.mtr. with all other statutory benefits, which may be available under the Act, including the benefit under Section 23(1-A) of the Act. However, it is also observed and clarified that the original claimants shall be entitled to the interest under Section 28 of the Act from the date of taking possession under Section 16 of the Act. 14. All these appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. 15. Registry is directed to return the record and proceedings of the case to the learned Tribunal forthwith.