Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1150 (GUJ)

PANCHABHAI PUNABHAI KACHADIYA v. DEPUTY COLLECTOR

2018-10-03

J.B.PARDIWALA

body2018
ORDER : 1 This appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is at the instance of the original Claimant on the file of the Land Reference Case before the Court below and is directed against the common judgment and award dated 8th February 2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in the Land Reference Cases in connection with the Jirayat lands of village: Mangvapal situated in Amreli Taluka, Amreli District in respect of lands acquired for the public purpose of the Vadi Irrigation Project. 2. In this case, lands of Village: Mangvapal came to be acquired for the public purpose of the Vadi Irrigation Scheme. The notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published in the Government Gazette on 15th April 2006 and declaration under Section 6 came to be published on 20th October 2007. The award under Section 11 of the Act came to be made on 17th October 2008 in the LAQ Case No.9 of 2005 determining the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.9/per square metre for the Jirayat land. 3. Being dissatisfied with the award, the appellant had filed an application under Section 18 of the Act and the Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.20/per square metre for the Jirayat land, against which the preset appeal has been preferred by the original claimant for enhancement of compensation. 4. Mr. Kunan Naik, the learned advocate for Mr. Vivan Shah and Mr. Utsav Parikh, the learned advocates for the appellant, has submitted that the Reference Court has determined the market value of the subject land in the present case solely on the basis of award passed in the case of LAR No.111 of 1999 in respect of the land belonging to same village, where a Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette in the year 1996. Mr. Naik further submitted that the said award was under challenge before this Court in the First Appeal No. 229 of 2016 along with other First Appeals, wherein this Court has enhanced the price of the land from Rs. 9/per square meter to Rs. 65/per square meter, and therefore, on 19th January 2004 the price of the land has been determined as Rs. 117/per square meter. 5. 9/per square meter to Rs. 65/per square meter, and therefore, on 19th January 2004 the price of the land has been determined as Rs. 117/per square meter. 5. According to the advocate, the lands are in near vicinity of the Amreli District Town, which is a part of the semiurban agglomeration, and therefore, the price of the land would increase by 20%, i.e. 10% increase each year. In support of his submissions, the learned advocate placed reliance on following decisions. (1) State of Haryana vs. Gurubax Singh and others 2008 (11) SCC 65 (2) Sardar Jogendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2008 (17) SCC 133 (3) Satish and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others 2009 (14) SCC 758 (4) Gangamma vs. G. Nagarathnamma 2009 (15) SCC 759 6. It was, accordingly, urged that the Reference Court has drawn inferences not warranted by the evidence on record and that has led to wrong findings and has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It was submitted that since this Court has already determined the marked value of the land belonging to the same village acquired for the same purpose, which is comparable and similarly situated, the appellant herein is entitled to the market value of the land as decided by this Court in the First Appeal No.1546 of 2018 and other allied matters along with compounding increment for each year from 2004 to 2006 in terms of the settled law, as propounded by the Supreme Court. It was urged that the impugned judgment and award dated 8th February 2018 passed by the Reference Court, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the compensation is required to be enhanced by applying the market value as determined by this Court in the case of village Mangvapal and giving compounding increment for each year. 7. Opposing the appeal, Mr. Rakesh Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the Reference Court has duly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20/per square metre for the Jirayat land, which is the correct market value of the acquired lands. 7. Opposing the appeal, Mr. Rakesh Patel, the learned Assistant Government Pleader, submitted that the Reference Court has duly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20/per square metre for the Jirayat land, which is the correct market value of the acquired lands. It was further submitted that before the Reference Court, no evidence has been adduced by the claimant based upon sale deeds in proximity in time to the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, nor has any substantial evidence been produced so as to enable the Reference Court to determine the market value on yield basis. The Reference Court has, therefore, rightly relied upon the evidence produced by the respondents and determined the market value accordingly. It was urged that the impugned judgment and award being just, legal and proper, does not call for any interference by this Court. 8. Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, this Court is of the opinion that, the Division Bench of this Court has already determined the market value of the same village acquired for the same purpose at Rs.117/per square meter as prevailing in the year 2004. This Court, therefore, may accept the value determined by the Division Bench. 9. The only question which now remains for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to increase in the value of the land, and if yes, then at what rate. This Court find that the Supreme Court has constantly observed that 10% increase would be just and right in all cases except when the acquiring authority proves otherwise. In the present case the acquiring authority has not led any evidence to prove that there was no appreciation in value of the land. This Court finds that 10% increase may be granted considering the time period of publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in cases decided by the Division Bench in the First Appeal No.1546 of 2018. 10. Now therefore, considering the market value of the lands to be Rs.117/per square metre in the year 2004, the market of value of the lands in the present case would thus come to Rs.117/plus Rs.23.4 = Rs.140.4 per square metre for the jirayat lands. 11. The Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20/per square metre for the jirayat land. 11. The Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20/per square metre for the jirayat land. The appellant would therefore be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.120.4 per square metre (Rs. 140.4 minus Rs. 20.00) for the jirayat land. 12. The appeal is, accordingly, partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The impugned judgment and award dated 8th February 2018 is hereby modified aforestated extent. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. The connected civil applications also stand disposed of. 13. At this stage, the learned counsel for the original claimant prays that the authorities may be directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation with the Reference Court as till date no additional amount has been paid to the claimant. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that the request appears to be reasonable. The respondents are, accordingly, directed to forthwith calculate and deposit the amount of compensation payable to the appellant in terms of this judgment with the Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment of this Court.