Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Industrial Development ... vs Bajuben Mansang Parmar on 19 July, 2018
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, B.N. Karia
C/FA/2536/2018 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2536 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2542 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2545 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2546 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2547 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2548 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2549 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2550 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2551 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2552 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Versus
Page 1 of 7
C/FA/2536/2018 JUDGMENT
BAJUBEN MANSANG PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR MB GANDHI(326) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.N. KARIA
Date : 19/07/2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. This group of appeals is filed by the Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation challenging a common judgement and award dated 22.01.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Reference Cases No. 92 of 2011 and connected references.
2. Brief facts are as under:
The appellant-Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation ['GIDC' for short] had set up an industrial estate at Village Dahej, Tal. Vadra, Dist. Bharuch. For expansion of GIDC, Dahej, Phase II, the appellant required further private lands. To acquire such lands belonging to individual agriculturists of the area, a notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1898 ['the Act' for short] was issued on 24.06.2008 followed by notification under section 6 of the Act issued on 16.07.2009. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 23.02.2011 awarding compensation to the land Page 2 of 7 C/FA/2536/2018 JUDGMENT owners at the rate of Rs. 21.81 per sq.mtr. Dissatisfied with such compensation, the claimants preferred references before the Reference Court. In such references, the claimants brought on record the development which had already taken place in the region at the time when their lands were put under acquisition. It was pointed out that the lands were irrigated lands, were situated close to Bharuch-Dahej State Highway.
Nearby the land, there was highly industrialized area. The land was adjacent to existing GIDC estate. The village itself was highly developed and industrialized. It was well connected to the taluka place. Village has residential societies, commercial complexes, hotels, petrol pumps, show rooms, banks, GNFC township. In the vicinity , there were heavy industrial projects such as Gandhar Project, project of Gas Authority of India, Dhara Bottling Plant, projects of Reliance, IPCL and Birla, IOC Bottling Plant, petro chemicals and polymer plants, ONGC plants and chemical factories of GNFC. They therefore, claimed that compensation may be awarded at the rate of Rs. 5000/- per sq.mtr. The claimants could not however, produce any comparable sale instances. A sale instance of the year 2010 cited by them was discarded by the Reference Court. They did however, produce a copy of an award dated 31.12.2015 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch, in Land Reference Case No. 158 of 2008 and connected references in case of Jaykumar Chimanlal Diwan vs Special Land Acquisition Officer and ors. It was a case in which, agricultural lands were acquired for construction of Page 3 of 7 C/FA/2536/2018 JUDGMENT Dahej Minor Canal of Narmada Project for which, notification u/s. 4 of the Act was issued on 17.03.2005. In such award, the Reference Court had awarded additional compensation of Rs. 114.91 sq.mtr over and above Rs. 6.36 sq.mtr awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. In other words, by virtue of such award, the claimants received a total compensation at the rate of Rs. 121.27 per sq.mtr.
3. The Reference Court in the present case, heavily relied on the judgement in case of Jaykumar Chimanlal Diwan (supra). After granting 10% increase per year, for the passage of time between the two notifications (4)(1) of the Act, the Reference Court in the present case worked out the additional compensation of Rs. 138.87 over and above Rs. 21.81 granted by the Land Acquisition Officer. As per this award, therefore, the value of the land was computed at Rs. 160.68 per sq.mtr. This award, the GIDC has challenged on multiple grounds. Since GIDC was not joined as a defendant in the reference case, sought leave of the Court to file the appeals which was granted. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel Shri Gandhi for GIDC and perused the materials on record. What emerges from the record is that the Reference Court has relied almost entirely on its award in case of Jaykumar Chimanlal Diwan (supra) which was a case of acquisition of land of the same village for which notification u/s. 4 of the Act was put about three years earlier as compared to the present case. The purpose of acquisition of the land in the said case was for Page 4 of 7 C/FA/2536/2018 JUDGMENT construction of Minor Canal of Narmada Project. The Reference Court accepted the valuation of the land worked out by the Reference Court in the earlier case and thereafter granted 10% increase per year for the time gap.
4. We do not find that the Reference Court had committed any error whatsoever. It is undisputed that the award in case of Jaykumar Chimanlal Diwan (supra) has achieved finality. By well settled law, awards and judgements of compensation for acquisition of nearby lands would be safe guide for computing compensation payable in land acquisition cases. Of course such awards have to be brought on record and similarities to be proved. Once these stages are crossed, the Court make adjustments for inflation and possible price rise, if the computation is for land which is acquired later in point of time. 10% increase per year is considered reasonable and advocated by series of judgements of this Court also. Quite apart from these factors, we simply cannot lose sight of the fact that as against the acquisition of land in the earlier case for construction of a canal the present acquisition was for GIDC estate that too for expansion of an existing estate. It is well settled that the purpose for which the land is acquired is one of the relevant considerations. The claimants had brought on record that the entire area was highly industrialized and developed even at the time when intention to acquire the land was declared. There were large number of heavy and medium industries already existing and functioning in the region.
Page 5 of 7C/FA/2536/2018 JUDGMENT GIDC, Dahej itself had been in existence since quite sometime. Acquisition was for expansion of estate of GIDC Phase-II. Very clearly, the lands under acquisition though agriculture lands, had clear non-agriculture use potential. All these developments did not take place after publication of notification u/s. 4(1) of the Act in the present case. The existence of GIDC, the existence of heavy industries and functioning factories pre-dated the notification for intention for acquisition of the land. One simply cannot ignore such existing developments at the time when GIDC decided to acquire further lands.
5. Counsel for the GIDC however, vehemently contended that the Reference Court should have slashed down 40% of the computed value of land for development cost. In this context, he relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in cases of Saibanna "dead" By lrs vs. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2009(3) GLH 605 and in case of Shimla Development Authority and ors vs Santosh Sharma and anr reported in AIR 1997 DC 1791. The concept of deduction for development of the land is well known and has developed over a period of time through series of judicial pronouncements. At the base of this concept is that when vast area of raw agriculture land is acquired for industrial purpose or some such other non-agriculture use, before such purpose can be achieved, the acquiring body would have to make considerable expenditure as well as set apart substantial Page 6 of 7 C/FA/2536/2018 JUDGMENT portion of acquired land for common amenities. These principles would therefore necessarily apply when the existing price as on the date of section 4 notification of such similar developed lands are being compared with the cost of acquisition of undeveloped land. At any rate, all these principles would have to be applied while the standard for payment of compensation was being worked out for acquisition of land for Narmada Canal. Once that process is over, the compensation computed achieves finality and it is this computation which is taken as a base for assessing compensation in a similar case arising in future, there would simply be no scope of applying the principle of deduction for development costs. Any such principle applied at a second stage would amount to possible double deduction.
6. In the result, we find no merits in the appeals. First Appeals are dismissed.
(AKIL KURESHI, J) (B.N. KARIA, J) JYOTI V. JANI Page 7 of 7