Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1503 (GUJ)

Sama Jamaji Maluji v. Pankaj Kumar, IAS

2022-10-21

MAUNA M.BHATT, N.V.ANJARIA

body2022
JUDGMENT : N.V. Anjaria, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. Shivang Thakkar for the applicants, learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Lavkumar assisted by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. K.M. Antani for the respondent at length. 2. This Miscellaneous Civil Application is filed invoking aids of Article 215 of the Constitution under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that there is a wilful disobedience of the order dated 23.7.2019. 3. The facts are that the applicant-the original petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.8943 of 2019 seeking the direction against the respondents authorities to implement award passed under Section 11(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1994 by paying difference of amount alongwith interest at 18% interest from the date of award till payment. The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to same as per new Jantri for his land bearing survey No.229/2 situated at village Nandsar, Talukar Rapar, District Kachchh which was acquired for the purpose of Narmada Canal. They were the group of matters which included the aforesaid Special Civil Application No.8943 of 2019. All the petitions were disposed of by order dated 23.7.2019 in which the following directions were issued by the Division Bench in para 5 of the judgment reproduced in para 3.4 hereinafter. 3.1 The basic facts were that the petitioners were the owners and occupiers of land bearing survey No.229/2 at Nandsar village Rapar Kachchh. The land was acquired alongwith other lands of other owners for the purpose of Narmada Yojna Canal in Kachchh Branch. Notification under Section 4 and under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 13.12.2009 and 10.6.2010. It was the case of the petitioners that they agreed for consent about under Section 11(2) of the Act, therefore did not file any application for reference under Section 18 of the Act. 3.2 The consent award came to be passed on 28.9.2011. As per condition of the said consent award, the land owners were required to be paid the difference of compensation as per the new Jantri price prevailing at the time in respect of the Nandsar village. The Jantri price at that time was not determined, therefore, reference was made in the award that as and when the Jantri price was finalized, the difference of compensation would be paid to the land owners. The Jantri price at that time was not determined, therefore, reference was made in the award that as and when the Jantri price was finalized, the difference of compensation would be paid to the land owners. The case of the petitioner that an identically situated agriculturists were party to the identical consent award had approach this court by filing Special Civil Application No.8465 of 2016 in Ramji Rama Vaid Vs. State of Gujarat and Others. 3.3 A statement was made on the basis of the condition No.10 of the consent award and the petitioners were assured that when the jantri price is finalized, the difference of compensation will be paid and that such an exercise will be carried out in the case of the petitioner. The Division Bench in order dated 23.7.2019 in Special Civil Application No.8934 of 2019 and others recorded that the case of the petitioners was governed by the issue so decided in Ramji Rama (supra) and also in Special Civil Application No.18540 of 2018 which was decided by order dated 7.12.2018 and similar statement was made to be recorded in the said order. 3.4 The final directions in order dated 23.7.2019 in respect of which the contempt is alleged reads as under in para 5. “Accordingly, we direct the respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioners herein for payment of difference of amount of compensation considering the new jantri price so stipulated in the awards under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The respondents are, therefore, directed to consider the case of the petitioners for payment of difference of amount of compensation on the basis of the new jantri price as mentioned in the awards under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as is done in the case of Ramji Rama Vaid (supra) and take a decision in context of the prayer made in the petitions within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Needless to say that looking to the fact that the petitioners are similarly situated as in the case of Ramji Rama Vaid (supra), the respondents will accordingly redetermine the amount of compensation and pass orders for payment of such redetermined amount on such consideration within the time frame as directed as aforesaid. The Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.” 4. The Petitions are disposed of with the aforesaid directions.” 4. On behalf of respondent No.5-Executive Engineer (Incharge) Kachchh Branch Canal Division, Bhachau, affidavit-in-reply was filed in which it was stated that after the judgment dated 23.7.2019 a corrected consent award came to be passed on 3.3.2020. The differential amount payable to the applicant was Rs.4,43,797/- which was indicated in the table produced in the affidavit, which was in accordance with the corrected consent award. It was stated that the applicant refused to accept the amount. The Rojkaam dated 4.3.2020 was prepared in that regard, it was stated by producing the copy of the Rojkaam. 4.1 Respondent No.5 further stated in its affidavit that a reminder was sent on 10.8.2021 to the applicant asking him to collect the amount of difference of compensation on 12.8.2021. Despite this reminder notice, the petitioner did not remain present before the Land Acquisition Officer. By submitting such facts it was submitted that the respondents were compliant of the directions in the judgment but the applicant did not turn up. Respondent No.6-Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer also filed affidavit detailing the factual aspects in relation to the determination of the compensation payable to the applicant. 5. Now, it will be seen that after order dated 23.7.2019 came to be passed in this Special Civil Application, a corrected consent award dated 3.3.2020 was declared and the applicant came to be awarded differential amount becoming payable due to revision in Jantri rates, which was directed by this court in the said order. It was a stand of the respondent recorded in para 3 of the order dated 23.7.2019 that in accordance with condition of 10 of the consent award by which the petitioners were assured that as and when the Jantri rates was finalized the difference in the compensation would be paid and such exercise would be carried out in the case of the petitioners. Learned Government Pleader had made statement and it was recorded also as is manifested from para 3 of the order. 5.1 From the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit, following facts emerged which become relevant which could not be controverted. (a) In respect of subject matter of acquisition, consent award dated 28.9.2011 came to be passed. The land of the petitioner was land survey No.229/2 at Nandsar Village, Rapar, which was included in the said award. 5.1 From the stand taken by the respondents in the affidavit, following facts emerged which become relevant which could not be controverted. (a) In respect of subject matter of acquisition, consent award dated 28.9.2011 came to be passed. The land of the petitioner was land survey No.229/2 at Nandsar Village, Rapar, which was included in the said award. At that time, petitioners were paid at the rate of Rs.8 per square meters. (b) In the Schedule appended to the said award, the petitioners figured at serial No.17 and the land was classified as non irrigated land. The amount determined in the award of compensation was consistent with Annual Statement of Rates, 2011 (ASR 2011), popularly known as Jantri. (c) The ASR 2011 when closely looked at, showed that the rate of non irrigated land was mentioned to be Rs.111 whereas for irrigated land it was determined as Rs.8 per square meter. This was a clear discrepancy in the award. Petitioner’s land was non irrigated. (d) The knowledge of the discrepancy and the determination of the award in light thereof led the petitioner to file Special Civil Application No.8943 of 2019. The discrepancy in the ASR 2011 was not in dispute. (e) Judgment and order dated 23.7.2019 was passed in the Special Civil Application and the respondent was directed to pay amount as per revised ASR 2011-the revised Jantri rates. 5.2 The Land Acquisition Officer represented before the Deputy Collector Stamp Duty for making correction in the revision of the Jantri rates as there was discrepancy as above. The Collector, Stamp Duty accepted the discrepancy in ASR 2011, particularly responding to the land of the petitioner and revised the same. The correct rates were communicated by communication dated 26.2.2020. In the record of the State Government also through the Office of Superintendent of Stamps, the revised Jantri rates were issued on 28.2.2020. As per the revised Jantri rates, the rate of irrigated land was revised to Rs.21 per square meter instead of Rs.8 per square meter. The rate for non irrigated land was revised from Rs.111 to Rs.16 per square meter. The petitioners were entitled to Rs.16 per square meter as the land was non irrigated. 5.3 On the basis of revised rates as above, consent award dated 3.3.2020 came to be passed. The rate for non irrigated land was revised from Rs.111 to Rs.16 per square meter. The petitioners were entitled to Rs.16 per square meter as the land was non irrigated. 5.3 On the basis of revised rates as above, consent award dated 3.3.2020 came to be passed. As per the consent award and the Schedule appended thereto petitioner came to be paid at Rs.8 per square meter, which was the differential amount arising out of the revision. At the time of original award dated 30.9.2011, unrevised and containing discrepancy the petitioner was paid Rs.8 therefore the remaining Rs.8 per square meter was paid. The facts and events noted above clearly indicate that the award dated 3.3.2020 was passed in consonance with the revised Jantri rates. It was in subservience of directions of this court in order dated 23.7.2019 in Special Civil Application No.8943 of 2019. 5.4 In above view, the petitioner was never entitled to get Rs.111 per square meter as compensation for the land in question, which was non irrigated. Mentioning of Rs.111 was discrepancy and the same came to be revised to Rs.16. Even if it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was even paid Rs.111 at some point, it was necessarily by mistake and inadvertence without noticing the evident discrepancy in ASR 2011. It is well settled as also a principle in law, that nobody can be permitted to take benefit of a mistake. 6. The entire case put forth by the petitioner that his entitlement was Rs.111 per square meter and that in not paying the compensation at the said rate, there occurred breach of order and direction of the court in Special Civil Application No.8943 of 2019 dated 23.7.2019, stands falsified. Such a plea has no foundation of facts. The discrepancy in the award was corrected and the petitioner was paid for his non irrigated land at the rate specified in the corrected award dated 3.3.2020. No case is made out to suggests that any contempt was committed by the respondents or there was any disregard much less any wilful disobedience of directions of the court. 7. The present Miscellaneous Civil Application is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Notice is discharged.