Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 129 (GUJ)

State of Gujarat v. Khant Kanji Rana

2020-01-22

R.M.CHHAYA, VIRESHKUMAR B.MAYANI

body2020
JUDGMENT : R.M. CHHAYA, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned Reference Court, Junagadh in Land Reference Case Nos. 1 of 1999, 4 of 1999 and 269 of 1999 whereby, the learned Reference Court in remand proceedings by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Khant Kanji Rana, 1998 (2) GLR 1383 was pleased to determine the market value of irrigated lands acquired for the public purpose of Uben Irrigation Scheme of Rs. 34.10 ps and Rs. 25.60 ps for non irrigated land, the State has preferred these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The Following facts emerge from the record of the appeals. 2.1. The lands belonged to the original claimants-respondents herein situated at village Bhatgam, Tal: Mendarda, District Junagadh were acquired for the public purpose of Uben Irrigation Scheme. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 2.10.1988 and same was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which came to be issued on 5.12.1980 and the Land Acquisition proceedings culminated into award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11(1) of the Act on 26.10.1981. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value of the non irrigating land at Rs. 90/- per acre and Rs. 130/- per acre for irrigating land and Rs. 1 per acre for Kharaba land. As the original claimants-land owners were dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, they filed an application under Section 18 of Reference, which was accepted by the Land Acquisition Officer and same was referred to the Reference Court, Junagadh. The said land Reference Case was registered as Case Nos. 100 of 1982, 102 of 1982 and 103 of 1982. The Reference Court by common judgment and award dated 30.03.1988 partly allowed the Reference Applications and awarded additional amount of Rs. 20/- per sq yard. The said award came to be challenged by way of filing First Appeals No. 1537 of 1988 and other allied First Appeals by the State Government, which was allowed and the matters were remanded back with specific direction vide judgment and order dated 18.12.1997 State of Gujarat (Supra). Pursuant to the remand, Reference Case was renumbered as Reference Case Nos. The said award came to be challenged by way of filing First Appeals No. 1537 of 1988 and other allied First Appeals by the State Government, which was allowed and the matters were remanded back with specific direction vide judgment and order dated 18.12.1997 State of Gujarat (Supra). Pursuant to the remand, Reference Case was renumbered as Reference Case Nos. 1 of 1999, 4 of 1999 and 269 of 1999. The Reference Court reheard the parties. The oral evidence was led by the claimants as well as Land Acquisition Officer as under:- 1. Mohanbhai Kanjibhai son of land owners at Exh.12. 2. Sardulbhai Jivabhai at Exh.21. 3. Ramji Jiva at Exh.23. 4. Sangram Jiva at Exh.24. 5. Gokal Nanji at Exh.25. 6. Valjibhai Ghelabhai at Exh.27. 7. Vallabh Vasram at Exh.30. 8. Premji Bijal at Exh.35. 9. Dhirajlal Gobarbhai at Exh.37. 10. Mulu Karshandas at Exh.38. 11. Chandulal Dharamshi at Exh.42. 12. Sevantilal Popatlal at Exh.45. The record also indicates that the further evidence was led by the claimants at Exh.110 Gokulbhai Nanjibhai Chavad, at Exh.121 Shamjibhai Bachubhai Chavda, at Exh.130 Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Chavda, at Exh.134 Ramanlal Kacharbhai Modhvadiya and at Exh.135 Jivanbhai Bhimjibhai Kalariya. The claimants also further relied upon the deposition of Jivanbhai Kalariya who was working as Secretary, Gondal APMC at Exh.135. The State authority also examined Nilesh V Upadhyay at Exh.150. The Reference Court after considering the evidence by the impugned judgment and award determined the market value of land in question i.e. for irrigating land of Rs. 34.10 ps and Rs. 25.60 ps for non irrigated land. 2.2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court, the State has preferred the present First Appeals. 3. Heard Mr. Parikh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State and Mr. G.M. Amin, learned advocate for the original claimants in all the appeals and also perused the original record and proceedings of the case. 4. Mr. Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader has taken this Court to the evidence as oral as well as documentary and the observations made by the learned Reference Court. Mr. Parikh contended that the Reference Court has wrongly brushed aside the evidence of sale deed and has wrongly determined the market value based upon the yield method and has awarded higher amount of compensation instead of adequate compensation. 4.1. Mr. Mr. Parikh contended that the Reference Court has wrongly brushed aside the evidence of sale deed and has wrongly determined the market value based upon the yield method and has awarded higher amount of compensation instead of adequate compensation. 4.1. Mr. Parikh also contended that as such burden is on the claimants to prove assertion made in the reference application as regards market value which has not been appreciated by the learned Reference Court and even though the claimants having not been able to discharge the burden of proving the market value without any proper base, the Reference Court has determined the market value of the irrigating land at Rs. 34.10 and Rs. 25.60 for non irrigating land per sq mtr, which deserves to be slice down as prayed for. Mr. Parikh relying upon the deposition of Rameshbhai at Exh.130 contended that village Kathrota and Bhatgam at a distance of 3 to 4 km, however without considering such evidence on record and without appreciating geographical location as per the map at Exh.40, the Reference Court has determined the market value. 4.2. According to Mr. Parikh, the Reference Court has committed an error in not considering the sale deed at Exh.146 and 147 as well as previous award at Exh.148. 4.3. Mr. Parikh also relying upon the deposition of Special Land Acquisition Officer- Nilesh Upadhyay at Exh.150 contended that authorities have clearly proved that the market value was determined by the Land Acquisition Officer based upon 14 sale instances which has not been considered by the Reference Court, which render impugned judgment and award erroneous. 4.4. Mr. Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader referring to the deposition of Jivanbhai Kalariya at Exh.135 contended that the Secretary of Gondal APMC has no connection with the market value of the agriculture produce at village Bhatgam and same cannot be made basis for determining the price to base the determination of market value of the land based upon the yield method. Mr. Parikh contended that method and manner in which yield method was applied by the Reference Court is ex-facie erroneous. According to Mr. Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader even though clear cut evidence was available in form of deposition of Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as sale deeds of the relevant period has not been considered and Reference Court has awarded an excessive amount of Rs. 34.10 ps for irrigating land and Rs. According to Mr. Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader even though clear cut evidence was available in form of deposition of Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as sale deeds of the relevant period has not been considered and Reference Court has awarded an excessive amount of Rs. 34.10 ps for irrigating land and Rs. 25.60 ps for non irrigated land. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Parikh submitted that impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside and amount as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer deserves to be confirmed 5. Per contra, Mr. G.M. Amin, learned advocate for the original claimants has vehemently opposed the present appeals and has supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court. Mr. Amin, learned advocate referring to the deposition of claimants before and after remand contended that the claimants have categorically discharge the burden of proving the market value based upon yield method. Mr. Amin contended that the Gondal is a major centre for agriculture produce in the whole Saurashtra Region and land belonging to the Bhatgam is within the limit of Gondal APMC and it being major market yard of the area, the crystallization of price of the agriculture produce is best available evidence on record, which has been rightly relied upon by the Reference Court. Mr. Amin contended that the acquisition is of 1980 and only after disbursement order passed by this Court in this appeals i.e. after about 21 years, the respondents land owners have received the compensation as awarded by the Reference Court. Referring to the observations of the learned Reference Court, it was submitted by Mr. Amin that the Reference Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has determined the market value which is adequate compensation and no interference is called for. Mr. Amin contended that appeals being merit less, deserve to be dismissed. 6. No other and further submissions, contentions and grounds have been raised by the learned advocate for respective parties. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the record and proceedings, more particularly, evidence of the claimants as well as evidence of Mr. 6. No other and further submissions, contentions and grounds have been raised by the learned advocate for respective parties. 7. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the record and proceedings, more particularly, evidence of the claimants as well as evidence of Mr. R.K. Modhvadiya at Exh.134 who was an expert and was District Agriculture Officer, it clearly transpires that respondents-original claimants have proved that extent of fertility of land and that the respondents-land owners were able to yield two crops in a year. The evidence clearly spells out that in the winter season the original claimants yield the Groundnut and in the summer crop of wheat. It also appears from the evidence that extent of yield is also proved by the respondents claimants and the Reference Court has rightly applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1994 SC 1836 and AIR 1997 SC 1845 and has adopted the yield method based upon the evidence at Exh.114 which is a market price list of Gondal APMC. The Secretary of the said Market Committee at Exh.135 clearly reveals the market price prevailing during the relevant period. As far as evidence adduced by the State Government at Exh.146 and 147 is concerned, the same are sale deed for the land situated at village Bhatgam. On perusal of the whole record and proceedings except the deposition of Special Land Acquisition Officer, vendors are not examined by the State before the Reference Court and learned Assistant Government Pleader has not been able to show anything from the record that the contents of the sale deed are proved or even attempted to be proved in any manner. Even referring to the previous award at Exh.148, it deserves to be noted that in the said case Section 4 Notification was dated 16.11.1982 which is after date of notification in the case on hand and therefore, the same cannot be considered as exemplar in the instant case. The Reference Court has therefore, rightly not relied upon the evidence at Exh.146 and 147 previous sale deeds as the same were not proved and Exh.148 previous award, which relates to Notification dated 16.11.1982. 8. We are in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Reference Court in para 28, 29 and 30 in the impugned judgment and award. 8. We are in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Reference Court in para 28, 29 and 30 in the impugned judgment and award. Upon re-appreciation of evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has determined the adequate compensation, which does not require any interference. The market value as determined by the Reference Court does not require any reduction as prayed for by the appellant and same is confirmed. 9. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Record and proceedings of the case be transmitted back to the learned Reference Court forthwith.