Gujarat High Court
Krishak vs Maganbhai on 25 January, 2010
Author: H.K.Rathod
Bench: H.K.Rathod
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/371/2000 15/ 24 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 371 of 2000
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 383 of 2000
=========================================================
KRISHAK
BHARATI COOPERATIVE LTD. - Appellant(s)
Versus
MAGANBHAI
KUNVERJI, NARANBHAI KUNVERJI, GANPATBHAI KUNVERJI & 1 -
Defendant(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
MANISH R BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
Date
: 25/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
Heard learned senior advocate Mr. MR Bhatt on behalf of appellant Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd (KRIBHCO), learned advocate Mr. KM Sheth appearing for respondent claimants.
The appellant has challenged award passed by Reference Court in Land Reference Cases no. 122/86 to 135/86. The main reference is Land Reference Case no. 126/86. These are group of 13 cases of Land References filed by respondent claimants arising out of common award passed by Land Acquisition Officer u/s 11 of Land Acquisition Act in respect to lands situated in village Variav and claimants are also residing at Variav District Surat. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed award on 3/6/1985. All pending land reference cases consolidated in Land Reference Case no. 126/86.
According to learned Senior advocate Mr. Bhatt, lands mentioned in Cl. no. 2 and 3 in award at page 11 are acquired by Government for a purpose of Hajira Kribhco Railway Line. The first notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act has been published on 9/4/1981 and section 6 notification was published on 27/4/1982. The claimants have put their case for inadequate compensation and demanded enhanced compensation to range of Rs. 50/- per sqmt and 30% solatium claim has been demanded by claimants. The objection filed by claimants was heard by Land Acquisition Officer and fixed Rs. 3/- per sqmt. Thereafter, claimants have aggrieved from award passed by Land Acquisition Officer made references u/s 18 of Land Acquisition Act. The reference was being made by claimants through Collector to District Court, Surat and references are sent to Reference Court.
According to claimants, Land Acquisition Officer did not consider land's situation, its fertility and crops being grown up in said lands. The lands which have been acquired is situated in Gujarat State and District which is second number as industrial District and also leading industries of art silk and diamond have been established in city in Surat and property, which has been acquired is only one Kilometer away from Surat. The land which has been acquired is joint with Surat by constructing bridge at Rander and land which has been acquired is connected with Surat City.
The Land Acquisition Officer has not considered that land has an irrigation facility and farmers are taking three time crops in one year. The claimants are taking crops of Cotton, parvar, tuver (green and dry), paddy, vegetables, sugercan, wheat, juwar, etc. By cultivating cotton, they are getting 13 to 14 quintal of cotton and per acre, they are getting production of 500 to 600 quintal and they are getting huge profit. In same way, in parvar and juwar also, they are getting huge profit, but this aspect is not considered by Land Acquisition Officer.
According to claimants, Land Acquisition officer has not considered that property is fallen within residential zone of Suda Development area and also same property is fallen in agricultural zone. The village Variav is very near to Taluka Headquarter and there is nearest railway station Utran which is 2 km away and Surat Railway Station is situated 15 km away and it is connected with Surat Kosad Pucca road and Variav village has all amenities like Electricity power supply, drinking water, primary school, buses etc. Near to acquired land, there are so many industrial company like Kribhco, NTPC, Essar Steel, ONGC, Reliance, Indian Oil Corporation, GIDC and future development of this acquired land has not been considered by Land Acquisition Officer. At the time of fixing compensation amount and also market rate which was prevailing at the time of land has been acquired has not been considered. The sale instances produced by claimants have also not been considered and i.e. how award passed by Land Acquisition Officer Rs. 3/- per sqmt is too much less. Therefore, References have been made by claimants with demand of Rs. 50/- per sqmt.
On behalf of appellant, written statement was filed denying averment made in claim petitions filed by claimants in references and according to appellant Land Acquisition Officer has passed proper, legal and valid award after giving opportunity to claimants. The Land Acquisition Officer has visited site and after considering fertility of lands, profitability and future development, passed legal and valid award. According to appellant, Reference is required to be dismissed.
From the pleadings between parties as referred above, issues have been framed by Reference Court. The written statement filed by claimants exh 35. Initially, claimants have demanded Rs. 7, but subsequently amendment was made in application and demanded Rs. 40/- per sqmt being a market price of lands in question. Vide exh 21, Nanubhai Maganbhai has deposed that he is claimant of Land Reference Case no. 126/86 and he is giving evidence on behalf of all claimants. He produced village form no. 7/12 from exh 18 to 28, valuation report of Government approved Valuer Shri Omprakash Pandya at exh 51, certified copy of award declared by Land Acquisition Officer in respect to village Chhaparbhata, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat exh 49 and claimants have also produced plan sanctioned at exh 50. The claimant Shri Nanubhai has deposed that all lands are having irrigation facility. Over and above, in some land, irrigation has been made by wells, electrical tubewell and canal. The claimants are taking crops of cotton, Parval, Tuver (green and dry), Paddy, Vegetables, Sugar can, Choda, wheat, juwar etc. The land is black, goradu Jarayat and claimants are taking three crops in a year. Thereafter, claimants have gave further evidence in para 10, 11, 12 and 13 which are quoted as under:
10. The claimants are also taking three crops of tuver in one season and per acre, the yield of green tuver is around 40 to 45 quintals and the rate at the time of prevalent was Rs. 500/- per quintal of green tuver. Therefore, from green Tuver, they are getting Rs. 22,500/-
and from dry Tuver, they are getting Rs. 1800/-, total Rs. 24300/- they are getting in a year.
11. The claimants have also cultivated the cotton and they are getting 13 to 14 quintals of cotton out of their cultivation. The rate of cotton at the time was around Rs. 500 to 600/- per quintal. Therefore, annual yield of 14 quintals multiply by Rs. 500/-, total they are getting Rs. 7000/-.
12. The claimants are cultivating the vegetables like parvar, ladies finger, brinjal, tomato, papdi etc. and per acre, they are getting 60 to 70 quintals of vegetables in one season and rate of parvar was around Rs. 400/- per quintal. Therefore, they would have got multiply Rs. 400/-, total Rs. 2400/- per acre.
13. The claimants are also cultivating Juwar and per acre, they are getting 50 to 60 quintals of crop in one season and per rate of quintal of Juwar around Rs. 400/- to Rs. 500/- multiply by 50, total amount of Rs. 20,000/-. So, in considering all these various crops, annual yield of each crop during the year, it is very much clear that the income of the claimant is around Rs. 15000/- per acre and after deducting the expenses of cultivation, labour charges, fertilizers, pesticides etc. Therefore, the Hon'ble Court considered that in all two crops, in a year is taken out of the land and that is why crops of tuver and cotton or parvar and juwar, then annual income out of one acre of land will be around Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- and if the aforesaid amount is divided by 4000 for finding out the income out of sq. metre, then it would come to Rs. 7-75 is multiplied by 10, it would come to Rs. 77.50 per sq. mtr. So, it is also respectfully submitted that the aforesaid amount Rs. 77.50 would come considering that the claimants take two crops in a year though they actually take three crops in a year out of the land in question. If we deduct expenses 25% from the aforesaid amount, even then Rs. 58=12 ps. Per sqmt, is a net income per Sq. metre to the claimants. However, in present case, the claimants have only demanded Rs. 40/- per sq. metre. So, in deciding the claim amount, the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is required to be determined in fixing the price. and multiplier of 10 is a just and equitable one.
Before Reference Court, Mr. Pandya Government Approved Valuer was examined by exh 51 and he has also given detailed evidence in para 14, 15, 16 and 17 which are quoted as under:
14. Shri Omprakash Pandya, Government approved valuer has also deposed before this Court at exh. 51. The valuation report is also produced in this case and the Government approved valuer has come to the income capitalization method and considered two crops in one year taken by claimants that is why cotton and vegetables parvar and considering the value of land for cotton would be around Rs. 19=75 per sq. metre and Rs. 43.50 per sq. metre for vegetables parvar, the total value comes to Rs. 62=77 Ps. Per sq. metre and thereafter, deducting 25% amount under the head of expenditure for cultivation, the remaining amount of Rs. 47=08 Ps. Per sq. metre has been arrived at by the valuer after applying the multiplier of 10 as per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in deposition, the said valuer has also deposed that Rs. 47=08Ps, comes after applying multiplier of 10, and in the deposition of the said valuer, he himself has stated that cropping pattern was adopted by the farmers of the village Variav, Taluka Choryasi, District Surat, is the same and that is why, the report of the valuer, is applicable to the present case.
15. The claimants are selling their vegetables in Market and Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Document has been produced before this Court to show that the claimants are getting price of crops. Over and above, the land which has been acquired is only 2 Km away from Surat City. It comes in SUDA plan. This fact has been mentioned in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer. In the award, it has also been mentioned that the claimants' properties fall in the residential zone and some properties fall in the agricultural zone. Variav village land is very nearer to Taluka Headquarter and the nearest railway station is Utran which is 15 km. away from Surat Railway Station. Variav is connected with Surat Kusad Pucca road and the village has facility like electricity, power supply, drinking water, primary schools, buses. The land of the village Variav is cultivated by the claimants themselves and there is no tenancy. The village is also nearer to Amroli bridge from which one can enter into Surat city directly. Near to Variav Village, there are industrial companies like KRIBHCO, NTPC, ESSAR STEEL, ONGC, RELIANCE, INDIAN OIL CORPORATION, GIDC, JAHANGIR COTTON PROCESSING UNIT, TUVER pulses Mills etc and the village Chhaparbhatha is situated only 2 km away from the village Variav.
16. Chhaparbhatha village land has been acquired for the housing purpose and the owners have been given compensation at the rate of 49/- per sq. metre. So, it is submitted that two villages are adjoining to each other and the nature of the land is similar one. Therefore, the said fact is required to be considered while determining the market value of the land of the present claimants. The Land acquisition officer himself has awarded Rs. 49/- per sq. metre to the owners of village Chhaparbhatha. To show this fact, the claimants have produced the documentary evidence of maps of SUDA and Urban Land Ceiling.
17. All the documentary evidence has been produced, has been proved by the applicant and considering the deposition all claimants are taking out three crops in a year from the land in question, the demand made by the claimants considering that they are taking two crops in a year, the value of the land comes to Rs. 58/- after deducting the expenses. However, the claimants have only demanded Rs. 40/- per sq. metre which is reasonable, just and proper. No sale instances during the period of notification under section 4 of the Act and some of the sale instances which were there were relating to the land situated far away from the village Variav. Therefore, when the otherside has not produced any documentary evidence, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court when no sale instances are required to be considered and they are not proved by the vendor and vendee and particularly, when the sale instances are not available near the year of notification under section 4, considering the market value of the land on the basis of capitalization methods, is the best method for determining the market value of the land of the claimants. Therefore, as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment, the present Reference may kindly be allowed.
The above facts stated by claimants in their written statement exh 35 and also relying upon decision of Apex Court reported in 1996 (3) SCC 592 and 1996 (1) SCC 631. Against this, it is necessary to note that appellant has not produced any evidence before Reference Court. Not only that appellant has not even produced any documents being rebuttal evidence before Reference Court. None was examined before Reference Court by appellant and no sale instances produced by appellant before Reference Court. Only oral submission is made by advocate of appellant Mr. MR Joshi before Reference Court.
According to appellant, in support of claim made by claimants, no documentary evidence is produced by claimants, therefore, their oral submissions should not have to be believed by Reference Court but it is necessary to note that claimant was cross examined by appellant advocate before Reference Court.
Thereafter, Reference Court in para 26 come to conclusion that land of Variav village belongs to claimants is not similar to Chhaparabhata village. Therefore, not to accept demand made by claimant because no documentary evidence produced by claimant that lands belonging to Variav village and Chhaparabhata village are similar in potential value, fertility and utility but Reference Court has ignored evidence of claimants which was cross examined by appellant advocate where detailed evidence is given by claimants exh 21 and village Chhaparabhata is one kilometer away from village Variav. The claimants has produced documentary evidence of map of Suda and Urban Land Ceiling to justify or proving that land of both villages Variav and Chhaparbhata are adjoining to each other and naturally all the land is similar one. Against this evidence of claimant, there is no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. Even though, finding is given by Reference Court that lands of both village Variav and Chhaparabhata is not similar. On what basis, this finding is given by Reference Court, is not discussed by Reference Court in para 26. The Reference Court has also come to conclusion that demand made by claimants based on village Chhaparabhata. The claimants are not entitled Rs. 49/- because lands of both villages are similar or not? For such no deposition is made before Reference Court by claimants. This finding is given in para 30 of award. The Reference Court has come to conclusion in para 31 and 32 which are quoted as under:
31. From the above submission of both the learned advocates and the documentary evidence produced before this Court, I find that, deposition of Ranjitbhai is believable and by the documentary evidence and 7/12 and the award produced in this case, it is quite clear that all claimants' land has a irrigation facility and a canal facility or a well irrigation facility ad the claimants are taking in one year two crops.
32. From the documentary evidence, it is also clear that the claimants are taking the crops of paddy, vegetables, lady finger, tuver (green), Jowar, rice etc. Different claimants have taken their crop from their field and from that, they have made some profit. This fact could has to believe because whenever there is an irrigation facility. It is a profitable to the agriculturist. No doubt, in present case, when the land has been acquired, on that period, what type of crops the claimants have taken from their field, for that, there is no deposition and no documentary evidence. But, when irrigation facilities available to the present claimants' land, this fact has been mentioned in award itself, it means that it is the Court's duty to find out the profitability when the irrigation facility available to the claimant's field.
The Reference Court has not believed evidence of Government Approved Valuer Mr. Pandya because he has taken charge Rs. 500/- only. The Reference Court has also come to conclusion that claimant has not produced any documentary evidence that how much quintal crops have been taken from their crops. Thereafter, Reference Court has finally come to conclusion in para 35 to 37, which are quoted as under:
35. In present case, from the documentary evidence and oral evidence also, I find that the submission of the total income and profit as per the submission of the claimant, is unbelievable, then, it is a duty of the Court to decide the income even though irrigation facility is available to the present claimants' field, naturally, this Court has a discretion to decide when claimants have irrigation facility, to find out a profit ratio what average irrigation facility has a profit ratio and calculating the profit ratio of the irrigation facility, I find that the claimants have failed to prove the profit, even then, I find that at least, there will be a net profit income of 2.90 Ps. Per sq. metre is profitable ratio and it is a nominal income can be considered as a profit when an irrigation facility is available to the field and as per 10 multiplier ratio is applicable laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. I have no hesitation that Rs.
10/- or 12/- compensation, is an adequate and proper. But, the Land Acquisition officer has only granted the compensation Rs. 3/-, is too much less amount and even though there is no evidence before this Court, I have no hesitation if there is only monsoon crop is available to the farmer, even then, there will be a more profit than Rs. 1/- per sq. metre and that is why, I find that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is unbelievable and totally less amount in comparison considering the potentiality of the acquired land.
36. Over and above, submission of the learned advocate for the claimants Shri Qadri that Chhaparabhata village Rs. 49/- compensation should be awarded, is also not applicable because there is no deposition before this Court that Chhaparabhatha village land is similar to the present claimants' land which has been acquired and that is why as per Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment, I can not grant Rs. 40/- to the present claimants.
37. The Land Acquisition Officer relied upon the sale instances in his award which are far away from the acquired land and such sale instances, can not be taken into consideration because when surrounding properties or surrounding sale instances is not available, only Court has discretion to fix the compensation price and from the documentary evidence produced by the parties and from the oral deposition, Court has come to the conclusion from the documentary evidence, I find that the compensation amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is too much less and the claimants have gone fail to prove the compensation amount Rs. 40/- per sq. metre, this is Court's duty to fix the price and that is why, on broad principle of natural justice and when no irrigation facility available to the field, the farmers can not get less than Rs. 1/- profit per sq. metre from his field. I find that Rs. 10/- is fit price to be compensated to the present claimants for their acquired land and that is why, I find that the present claimant is entitled to Rs. 10/- per sq. metre.
The contention raised by learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt that 50% cultivation cost is not deducted by Reference Court while determining or enhancing market price of lands in question. He relied upon decision of Apex Court reported in AIR 1997 SC 1845 and 2005 (6) SCC 454 and submitted that Reference Court has not given any sufficient reason why he differ from award passed by Land Acquisition Officer.
Learned advocate Mr. Sheth emphasized that sufficient documents produced by claimants i.e. village form vide exh 18 to 28 and that documents have been proved by evidence of claimants exh 21 and detail evidence is given about crops available from lands in question having irrigation facility and report of Government Valuer exh 32 and award passed by Land Acquisition Officer in respect to village Chhaparabhata exh 29 and evidence of Mr. Pandya Government Approved exh 51 not properly appreciated by Reference Court.
He submitted that in monsoon season atleast from lands in question crops have been produced and received by claimants. He relied upon decision of 2002 (2) GLH 435 and decision of Division Bench of this Court in first appeal no. 1942/2003 decided on 19/6/2006.
Against arguments made by learned advocate Mr. Sheth, learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt again emphasized that there is no relevancy about similarity of lands of both villages Variav and Chhaparabhata established by claimants and Reference Court has rightly not relied evidence of Mr. Pandya Government Approved Valuer and merely on presumption amount has been enhanced by Reference Court. Therefore, it require to be quashed and set aside. However, against multiplier of 10 applied by Reference Court, he is not raised any objection but he suggested that instead of Rs. 10/-, Rs. 5/- may be reasonable amount.
I have considered submission made by both learned advocates and I have perused award passed by Reference Court, Surat. It is necessary to note that Reference Court has not properly dealt with matter on merits. The evidence of claimant exh 21 give detail about distances, crops, potential value, fertility and utility of lands of both villages Variav and Chhaparabhata and also gave evidence by claimant that surrounding lands area covered by industrial area and various industries are situated one kilometer away from village Variav and village Variav is one or two kilometer away from Surat city and also detail evidence have been given about quantity of crops obtained by claimants three times in a year and two kilometer away Taluka head quarter and railway station Utran and Surat Railway station is situated 15 kilometer away. Against oral evidence of claimants, facts which are stated on oath there is no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. The written statement made by advocate of claimant exh 35 against which no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court. The evidence of exh 21 Nanubhai made clear before Reference Court as referred in para 9 that all lands are having irrigation facility. Over and above, in some lands, irrigation has been made by Wells, electrical Tubewell and canal and claimants are taking crops of Cotton, Parval, Tuver (green and dry), Peddy, Vegetables, Sugarcan, Wheat, Jawar etc. The land is black Goradu Jarayat and claimants are taking three crops in a year. The income also placed on record by oral evidence of claimants in respect to each crops and how much amount they are getting is also clearly established before Reference Court by claimants. This aspect has been discussed by Reference Court in para 10 to 13 in detail.
So in light of aforesaid evidence and considering fact that there is no rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court, Reference Court has come to conclusion that claimants are having irrigation facility, therefore, must be getting profit from crops. After calculating profit ratio of irrigation facility, minimum net profit comes to Rs. 2.90ps per sqmt and nominal income is to be considered as profit when irrigation facility is available to field then ratio of 10 multiplier is applicable which comes to either Rs. 10 or Rs. 12/- which is found to be an adequate and proper.
Therefore, considering income from monsoon season, crops which available to farmer even then there will be more profit of Rs. 1/- per sqmt. So Reference Court has considered minimum compensation which is available from two crops Rs. 1/- per sqmt and applied 10 multiplier and awarded Rs. 10/- while exercising discretionary power being price to compensation to present claimants for their acquired lands.
The contention raised by learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt that cost of cultivation is not deducted by Reference Court can not be accepted in light of fact that minimum Rs. 1/- per sqmt has been considered by Reference Court being price of lands in question and 10 multiplier is applied then question of deducting 50% does not arise. The Reference Court has given sufficient reason while differing with award passed by Land Acquisition Officer and also considered that from appellant side not a slightest evidence has been produced either oral or documentary against evidence of claimants.
Therefore, contention raised by learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt relying upon aforesaid decision as referred above can not be accepted. The sale instances which was considered by Land Acquisition Officer not produced on record by appellant before Reference Court. Therefore, para 10 from decision of Division Bench of this Court in First appeal no. 1942/2003 to 1951/2003 dated 19/6/2006 are quoted as under:
10. The contention that the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, which has taken into consideration the sale deeds, should be confirmed by this Court, cannot be accepted. It is well to remember that the award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act is nothing but an offer. Further, the award by itself has no evidenciary value. It is true that while determining the market value of the lands acquired, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has referred to certain sale deeds. However, during the course of examination of certain witnesses by the acquiring body, those sale deeds could not be brought on record for consideration of the Court. If the acquiring body and the government were of the view that the market value of the lands acquired should be assessed on the basis of sale deeds, nothing prevented them from producing the sale deeds on record of this case. Under the circumstances, the plea that on the basis of sale deeds referred to by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award, determination of the market value arrived at by the Reference Court should be set aside, has no substance and is hereby rejected.
The head note D from decision of this Court in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kodarbhai Jenabhai & Ors reported in 2002 (2) GLH 435 which is also relevant is quoted as under:
D Land Acquisition Act, 1894 S. 23 Market price Determination on the basis of crop valuation It is only in absence of evidence to the contrary that 50% of gross income should be deducted as cost of cultivation to arrive at net profit and when evidence is available the Court is bound to calculate the cost of cultivation as per such evidence State of Gujarat V. Rama Rana, 1997 GLR (3) SC 1954 relied upon.
The observation made by Apex Court in case of State of Gujarat and Ors Vs. Rama Rana reported in 1997 (2) SCC 693. The relevant head note is quoted as under:
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 S. 23 Determination of compensation on the basis of yield Rule for appreciation of evidence Statistics from Agriculture Department as to nature of crops and price prevailing at that time not produced However, overall evidence cannot be rejected on that ground Court has a duty to subject the oral evidence to great scrutiny and evaluate the evidence objectively and dispassionately to reach a finding on compensation Multiple of 10 should be applied and deduction of 50% towards cultivation expenses should be made Claimants are also entitled to statutory benefits under amendment Act 68 of 1984.
In light of aforesaid observation made by this Court and considering evidence of claimant as given before Reference Court while supplying all details of crops received by claimant from lands in question and also having irrigation facility, electrical Tube well, and in monsoon season also claimants are getting crops from lands in question. The oral evidence of claimants having evidential value unless some rebuttal evidence produced by appellant before Reference Court.
According to my opinion, Rs. 3/- which has been awarded by Land Acquisition Officer in such lands which is near to Surat city surrounding by Industrial Corporate body and near Utran Railway station having value to atleast get Rs. 10/- per sqmt as total amount which has been awarded by Reference Court can not consider to be arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust. The contention raised by learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt merely pointing out some error of Reference Court where evidence of Valuer is not considered. The evidence of award passed by Land Acquisition Officer in respect to village Chhaparabhata is not considered by Reference Court but question is that what evidence produced by appellant against evidence produced by claimant. In such circumstances, Reference Court has rightly relied upon evidence of claimant and even considering minimum income which including 50% deducting of cultivation costs then 10 multiplier and Rs. 1/- per sqmt can not consider to be on higher side. On the contrary, finding given by Reference Court is based on legal evidence. Therefore, contention raised by learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt can not be accepted.
In view of aforesaid discussion award passed by Reference Court can not consider to be erroneous. On the contrary, looking to potential value, fertility and utility of land in question which adjoining to village Chhaparabhata and also near to Surat city Utran Railway station and surrounding by number of industries of corporate body which facts have been proved by claimants not denied by appellant.
Therefore, no error committed by Reference Court which would require interference by this Court. Hence, there is no substance in first appeal. Accordingly, first appeal are dismissed.
(H.K.RATHOD, J) asma Top