Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Vijayaben Gordhanbhai on 27 September, 2021
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: J.B.Pardiwala, Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4841 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
==========================================================
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 ?
==========================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Versus
VIJAYABEN GORDHANBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KM ANTANI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR NISHANT LALAKIYA(5511) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 27/09/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI) Page 1 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021
1. This first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( for short 'the Act') is at the instance of the State of Gujarat - original opponents and is directed against the judgment and award passed by the 3rd Additional Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot in the Land Reference Case No.416 of 1998 dated 29.9.2017 below Ex.36. The Court below allowed the reference raised by the respondents (original claimants) and passed the following order which is reproduced thus :-
"The present reference application is granted with following details.
(1) The agricultural lands at Rajkot village of the applicants in the reference cases were acquired for construction of a bypass around the Rajkot City joining Rajkot - Jamnagar, Rajkot - Morbi and Rajkot- Gondal roads. The price of acquired land is determined at the rate of Rs.600-00 per square meter wherein the compensation amount which is already paid by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.20-00 per square meter is to be deducted therefrom. It is held that the remaining price at the rate of Rs.580-00 per square meter is to be paid for the land being acquired.
(2) In the present reference case, the compensation for standing crop is not granted.
(3) It is held that all the applicants are entitled to the Page 2 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 additional solatium amount at the rate of 30% of the total additional amount sanctioned.
(4) The price rise at the rate of 12% on the additionally sanctioned total amount is granted for a period starting from publishing of the notification under Section-4 till the date of award. Thus, increase in the prices at the rate of 35% is granted for 35 months.
(5) It is held that, the applicants are entitled for receiving an interest at the simple interest rate of 9% for the first year starting from the date of taking possession of the land and thereafter at the simple interest rate of 15% until receiving of the amount which is the sum total of the additional sanctioned amount of compensation as per the calculation-sheet attached herewith, Solatium amount at the rate of 30% thereof and the amount of increase in the prices at the rate of 12% per anumn. It is ordered that the interest amount as per Section-28 of the Land Acquisition Act shall be paid to the applicants.
(6) It is ordered that all the expenses of the applicants' land reference cases are to be borne by the respondent.
The expenses incurred by the respondent shall be borne by him.
(7) The calculation-sheet annexed herewith be construed as a part of this order.
(8) A decree in accordance with the order be drawn.
Page 3 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 (9) A copy of this order be included in every reference case."
2. The facts giving rise to this first appeal may be summarized as under :-
2.1 The appeal pertains to acquisition of land at the Village :
Rajkot, Taluka : Rajkot, Dist. Rajkot. The compensation is to be awarded under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The land came to be acquired for the purpose of construction of by-pass around the Rajkot city joining Rajkot, Jamnagar, Morbi and Rajkot - Gondal road.
2.2 The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 22.9.1992. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 4.3.1993. The award under Section 11 was passed by the Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation to the original claimants - respondents at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.mtr., by an award dated 30.9.1995 in the Land Acquisition Case No.36 of 1991.
2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer the original claimants (respondents) filed the Land Reference Case No.416 of 1998 under Section 18 of the Act claiming compensation of Rs.700/-
per sq.mtr. The Reference Court at the conclusion of the reference by judgment and award dated 29.9.2017 allowed the Page 4 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 reference of the original claimants and observed that the original claimants were entitled to receive total compensation of Rs.600/- per sq.mtr., together with solatium and interest thereon, over and above the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and were entitled to get increase at the rate of 12% per annum in accordance with the provisions of Section 23(1)(a) of the Act plus the statutory benefits and interest as ordered in the award.
2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 29.9.2017 in Land Reference Case No.416 of 1998 the appellant i.e. the State of Gujarat has preferred this first appeal.
2.5 The following order came to be passed on 18.12.2018 in the present first appeal which read thus :-
"Order in First Appeal This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. First Appeal is admitted.
Order in Civil Application The present application has been filed by the applicant seeing stay of the execution of the judgment and award. The award shall remain stayed subject to deposit of the decreeal amount along with the proportionate interest and costs. If the amount is so deposited within eight weeks, 50% of the same shall be disbursed to the claimants. However, Page 5 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 remaining amount shall be invested in long term fixed deposit initially for a period of one year and to be renewed thereafter from time to time till final disposal of the main matter. Accordingly, the present Civil Application stands disposed of."
Submissions of the appellants (original opponents) :-
3. Mr. K. M. Antani, the learned AGP submitted that the reference application being Land Reference Case No.416 of 1998 preferred by the original claimants was time barred under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act and, therefore, the Reference Court ought not to have entertained the Land Acquisition Case preferred by the claimants.
3.1 It is submitted that the Reference Court committed an error in not considering the oral evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer in its true perspective. While fixing the market value of the land, the overall consideration of all the circumstances was required to be taken into consideration.
3.2 It is submitted that the Reference Court ought to have affirmed the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act. The Reference Court failed to comply with the principles of the Land Acquisition Act properly. The award came to be passed by the Reference Court is without looking into the evidence of actual development. It Page 6 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 was mainly contended that the award passed by the Land Reference Court is erroneous. The Reference Court wrongly awarded the additional compensation, over and above the compensation already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
Submissions on behalf of the respondents (original claimants) :-
4. Mr. Nishant Lalakiya, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (original claimants) submitted that the Government accepted the award dated 24.4.2014 passed in the LRC Nos.415, 417 and 418 of 1998 respectively, which arises out of the self same award dated 30.9.1995 under Section 11 LAQ Case No.36 of 1991 consisting of four parcels of lands.
4.1 He submitted that in the earlier adjudication i.e. LRC Nos.415, 417 and 418 of 1998 respectively award dated 24.4.2014 is conclusive on the same subject matter and no appeals are preferred by the appellants - State.
4.2 He submitted that only because the LRC No.416 of 1998 was singled out and came to be decided at a later point in time i.e. vide order dated 29.9.2017, the Government decided to file an appeal without verifying that there is no appeal preferred in the earlier three land references.
Page 7 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 4.3 He submitted that there is actually and practically no difference between the award dated 24.4.2014 passed in the LRC Nos.415, 417 and 418 of 1998 and the impugned award dated 29.9.2017 passed in the LRC No.416 of 1998.
4.4 He submitted that there are no valid much less legal grounds raised by the State to substantiate the maintainability of the appeal.
4.5 In support of his above submissions he has placed strong reliance on the decision in the case of Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple vs. Meenakshir Ammal, (2015) 3 SCC 624.
4.6 He submitted that the appeal filed by the appellants - State deserves to be dismissed.
5. We have heard Mr.K. M. Antani, the learned AGP appearing for the appellants - State and Mr. Nishant Lalakiya, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (original claimants).
Analysis :-
6. The competent authority acquired the land of Survey Nos.623-Paiki and 624-Paiki total admeasring 1-58-18 hectors which is an old tenure agricultural land culminating into Land Reference Cases Nos.415/1998, 416/1998, 417/1998 and Page 8 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 418/1998. The Form-A is produced thus :-
- : Form - "A" :-
Form of Land to be Acquired No. LQ- Case no. 36/ 1991 District : Rajkot Taluka : Rajkot Objective : Construction of Bypass around the Rajkot City joining Rajkot - Jamnagar, Rajkot - Morbi and Rajkot - Gondal Area Sr. Survey Tenure of He. R. Sq. Type of land Remarks No. Number Land mt.1 2 3 4 5 6
Old 1 623 paiki 0-22-64 Jirayat 417/98 Tenure Old 2 623 paiki 0-68-85 Jirayat 416/98 Tenure Old 3 624 paiki 0-62-37 Jirayat 418/98 Tenure Old 4 624 paiki 0-04-32 Jirayat 415/98 Tenure Total 1-58-18 6.2 The Land Reference Court in Land Reference Cases Nos. 415, 417 and 418 of 1998 passed a common award dated 24.4.2014. The operative paragraph reads thus :-
"All the Reference Applications are partly allowed with following details.
(1) The agricultural lands at Rajkot village of the Page 9 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 applicants in the reference cases were acquired for construction of a bypass around the Rajkot City joining Rajkot - Jamnagar, Rajkot - Morbi and Rajkot- Gondal roads. The price of acquired land is determineed at the rate of Rs.600-00 per square meter wherein the compensation amount which is already paid by the Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.20-00 per square meter is to be deducted therefrom. It is held that the remaining price at the rate of Rs.580-00 per square meter is to be paid for the land being acquired.
(2) In the present reference case, the compensation for the construction or the trees is not granted.
(3) It is held that all the applicants are entitled to the additional solatium amount at the rate of 30% of the total additional amount sanctioned.
(4) The price rise at the rate of 12% on the additionally sanctioned total amount is granted for a period starting from publishing of the notification under Section-4 till the date of award. Thus, increase in the prices at the rate of 35% is granted for 35 months.
(5) It is held that, the applicants are entitled for receiving an interest at the simple interest rate of 9% for the first year starting from the date of taking possession of the land and thereafter at the simple interest rate of 15% until receiving of the amount which is the sum total of the additional sanctioned amount of compensation as per the calculation-sheet attached herewith, Solatium amount at the rate of 30% thereof and the amount of Page 10 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 increase in the prices at the rate of 12% per anumn. It is ordered that the interest amount as per Section-28 of the Land Acquisition Act shall be paid to the applicants.
(6) It is ordered that all the expenses of the applicants' land reference cases are to be borne by the respondent.
The expenses incurred by the respondent shall be borne by him.
(7) The calculation-sheet annexed herewith be construed as a part of this order.
(8) A decree in accordance with the order be drawn.
(9) A copy of this order be included in every reference case."
6.3 In all the references Section 4 notification dated 22.9.1992, Section 6 notification dated 4.3.1993, award under Section 11 dated 30.9.1995 in Land Acquisition Case No.36 of 1991 were passed awarding the compensation to the original claimants - respondents at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.mtr., on the same date and with respect to all the survey numbers. In the Land Reference Cases Nos.415, 417 and 418 of 1998 common award came to be passed on 24.4.2014 awarding total compensation of Rs.600/- per sq.mtr., together with solatium and interest thereon and in the Land Reference Case No.416 of 1998 which is impugned award dated 29.9.2017 also the total compensation of Rs.600/- per sq.mtr.,total compensation of Rs.600/- per sq.mtr., together with solatium and interest thereon came to be awarded by the Land Reference Tribunal.
6.4 In the present first appeal the appellant - State raised Page 11 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 the contention that the Land Reference Court erred in entertaining the appeal filed by the claimants even though the reference filed by the claimants was time barred. The Land Reference Court dealt with the issue of limitation and took into consideration the fact that the award under Section 11 dated 30.9.1995 was ex-parte. The notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was delivered to the claimants on 4.10.1995. The claimants preferred the reference on 10.11.1995. The receipt of the award under Section 11 dated 10.11.1994 was produced at Ex.16. The notices under Section 12(2) were produced at Ex.13 to 15. Since the reference came to be filed within a period of six months in accordance with the requirement of the Act, the said issue was held in favour of the claimants and the Reference Court rightly held that the appeal was filed within the period of limitation. The contention of the appellant - State that the reference was time barred and that the Reference Court committed an error in continuing the reference in view of the above cannot be accepted.
6.5 Before we arrive to a final conclusion it is apt to produce paragraphs 22 to 24 of Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple vs. Meenakshir Ammal, (2015) 3 SCC 624 which reads thus :-
"22. Procedural norms, technicalities and processal law evolve after years of empirical experience, and to ignore them or give them short shrift inevitably defeats justice. Where a common judgment has been delivered in cases in which consolidation orders have specifically been passed, we think it irresistible that the filing of a single appeal leads to the entire dispute becoming sub judice once again. Consolidation orders are passed by virtue of the bestowal of Page 12 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 inherent powers on the Courts by Section 151 of the CPC, as clarified by this Court in Chitivalasa Jute Mills vs. Jaypee Rewa Cement (2004) 3 SCC 85. In the instance of suits in which common Issues have been framed and a common Trial has been conducted, the losing party must file appeals in respect of all adverse decrees founded even on partially adverse or contrary speaking judgments. While so opining we do not intend to whittle down the principle that appeals are not expected to be filed against every inconvenient or disagreeable or unpropitious or unfavourable finding or observation contained in a judgment, but that this can be done by way of cross-objections if the occasion arises. The decree not assailed thereupon metamorphoses into the character of a "former suit". If this is not to be so viewed, it would be possible to set at naught a decree passed in Suit A by only challenging the decree in Suit B. Law considers it an anathema to allow a party to achieve a result indirectly when it has deliberately or negligently failed to directly initiate proceedings towards this purpose. Laws of procedure have picturesquely been referred to as handmaidens to justice, but this does not mean that they can be wantonly ignored because, if so done, a miscarriage of justice inevitably and inexorably ensues. Statutory law and processal law are two sides of the judicial drachma, each being the obverse of the other. In the case in hand, had the Tenant diligently filed an appeal against the decree at least in respect of O.S. 5/78, the legal conundrum that has manifested itself and exhausted so much judicial time, would not have arisen at all.
23. Adverting in the impugned Judgment to the decision of Page 13 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 this Court in Sajjadanashin Sayed vs. Musa Dadabhai Ummer AIR 2000 SC 1238, the Division Bench delineated the distinction between an aspect of the litigation that is collaterally and incidentally, as against one that is directly and substantially focal to the question the determination of which is the immediate foundation of the decision. Reference was also drawn to enunciation of what constitutes res judicata in Hoag vs. New Jersey (1958) 356 U.S. 464, namely that this important legal principle is attracted "if the records of the formal trial show that the judgment could not have been rendered without deciding the particular matter, it will be considered as having settled that matter as to all future actions between the parties". The Division Bench also garnered guidance from the observations of this Court in Isher Singh vs. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1965 SC 948 requiring the examination of the Pleadings and the Issues in order to ascertain whether the question was directly and substantially litigated upon. The Division Bench also considered Asrar Ahmed vs. Durgah Committee, Ajmer, AIR 1947 PC 1 and Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji vs. Patel Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai, AIR 1952 SC 143, before concluding that Issue No.2 framed in O.S. 5/78 was wholly unnecessary and faulty. The Division Bench held that the findings on that Issue were unnecessary, did not constitute the minimum foundation for the ultimate decision and, therefore, would not constitute res judicata. We have already indicated above that, in our opinion, if O.S.5/78 was merely a suit for injunction simpliciter, since the Defendants therein (both the Trustees as well as the Transferees) had posited in their respective Written Statements that they had no intention to dispossess the Plaintiff/Tenant, that suit ought not to have been Page 14 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 dismissed but should have been decreed. We have also laid emphasis on the fact that the Tenant had made a specific and pointed assertion in the plaint that the transfer of the demised land by the Trust to the Transferees was not in consonance with Section 26 of the Puducherry Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1972. We have also noticed the fact that this was an important objection raised by the Tenant in their Written Statement in O.S.6/78 and O.S.7/78. It seems to be incongruous to us to consider ownership of the demised premises to be irrelevant in O.S.5/78 but nevertheless constitute the kernel or essence or fulcrum of the disputes in O.S.6/78 and O.S.7/78. The dialectic adopted by the Court must remain steadfastly constant - if title was irrelevant so far as a claim for injunction simpliciter, it was similarly so in relation to the party having the advantage of Section 116 of the Evidence Act in respect of its claim for arrears of rent from its tenant. It would not be logical to overlook that the pleadings on behalf of the Tenant were common in all three suits, and that Issues on this aspect of the dispute had been claimed by the Tenants in all the three suits. On a holistic and comprehensive reading of the pleadings of the Tenant in all the three suits, it is inescapable that the Tenant had intendedly, directly and unequivocally raised in its pleadings the question of the title to the demised premises and the legal capacity of the Trustees to convey the lands to the Transferees. This is the common thread that runs through the pleadings of Tenant in all three suits. It is true that if O.S.5/78 was a suit for injunction simpliciter, and in the wake of the stance of the Trustees and Transferees that no threat had been extended to the Tenants regarding their ouster, any reference or challenge to the ownership was Page 15 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 wholly irrelevant. But the ownership issue had been specifically raised by the Tenant, who had thus caused it to be directly and substantially in issue in all three suits. So far as the Suit Nos.6/78 and 7/78 are concerned, they were also suits simpliciter for the recovery of rents in which the defence pertaining to ownership was also not relevant; no substantial reason for the Tenant to file an appeal in O.S. 6/78 had arisen because the monetary part of the decree was relatively insignificant. Obviously, the Tenant's resolve was to make the ownership the central dispute in the litigation and in these circumstances cannot be allowed to equivocate on the aspect of ownership. Logically, if the question of ownership was relevant and worthy of consideration in O.S. 6/78, it was also relevant in O.S. 5/78. Viewed in this manner, we think it is an inescapable conclusion that an appeal ought to have been filed by the Tenant even in respect of O.S. 5/78, for fear of inviting the rigours of res judicata as also for correcting the "dismissal" order. In our opinion, the Tenant had been completely non-suited once it was held that no cause of action had arisen in its favour and the suit was 'dismissed'. Ignoring that finding and allowing it to become final makes that conclusion impervious to change. In Sheoparsen Singh vs. Ramnandan Prasad Singh, (1915-16) 43 I.A.91, the Privy Council opined - "Res judicata is an ancient doctrine of universal application and permeates every civilized system of jurisprudence. This doctrine encapsulates the basic principle in all judicial systems which provide that an earlier adjudication is conclusive on the same subject matter between the same parties." The raison d'etre and public policy on which Res judicata is predicated is that the party who has raised any aspect in a litigation and has had Page 16 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 an Issue cast thereon, has lead evidence in that regard, and has argued on the point, remains bound by the curial conclusions once they attain finality. No party must be vexed twice for the same cause; it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to litigation; a judicial decision must be accepted as correct in the absence of a challenge. The aspect of law which now remains to be considered is whether filing of an Appeal against a common Judgment in one case, tantamounts to filing an appeal in all the matters.
24. The application of res judicata, so very often, conjures up controversies, as is evident from the fact that even in this Court divergent opinions were expressed by the two Judge Bench, leading to the necessity of referring the appeal to a Larger Bench. It was for this reason that we thought it appropriate to deal with the dispute in detail. It seems to us that had the decisions of the three Judge Bench in Lonankutty and Prabhu been brought to the attention of our Learned and Esteemed Brothers on the earlier occasion when this appeal was heard by two Judge Bench, the dichotomy in opinion would not have arisen. The outcome of the appeal before the High Court would have also shared a similar fate. On the foregoing analysis, especially the previous enunciation of law by three Co- ordinate Benches, we are in agreement with the opinion of our Learned Brother Asok Kumar Ganguly that the appeal calls to be allowed. We are of the opinion that having failed or neglected or concertedly avoided filing appeals against the decrees in O.S.5/78 and O.S.7/78 the cause of the Respondents/Tenants was permanently sealed and foreclosed since res judicata applied against them. We accordingly allow this Appeal but keeping the varying Page 17 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 verdicts in view decline from making any order as to costs."
In the facts of the present case the appellant - State chose not to assail the award passed in LRC Nos.415, 417 and 418 of 1998 arising out of the common Section 4 notification dated 22.9.1992, consequent common notification under Section 6 of the Act dated 4.3.1993 and common award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act dated 30.9.1995 in the Land Acquisition Case No.36 of 1991 and all the claimants also preferred land references under Section 18 before the Land Reference Tribunal whereby the LRC Nos.415, 417 and 418 of 1998 came to be decided by award dated 24.4.2014 and the present Land Reference Case No.416 of 1998 came to be decided on 29.9.2017. The award is identical in both the references as referred to above.
6.6 In view of above, we are of the view that the impugned Land Reference Case No.416 of 1998 was not considered alongwith LRC Nos.415, 417 and 418 of 1998. The Reference Court while deciding the impugned land reference followed the previous award in LRC Nos.415, 417 and 418 of 1998. The State Government chose not to file appeal against the Land Reference Case Nos.415, 417 and 418 of 1998 and accepted the compensation at the rate of Rs.600/- per sq.mtr. However, the State Government assailed the impugned award dated 29.9.2017 passed in Land Reference Case No.416 of 1998 by filing the present first appeal. Save and except the point of limitation the State Government has not averred any other contention which requires our consideration. The memorandum of appeal filed by the State does not disclose any details as to why we should reduce the amount awarded towards total Page 18 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 compensation of Rs.600/- per sq.mtr., together with solatium and interest thereon in the Land Reference Case No.416 of 1998. In the case of Fida Hussain and ors. vs. Moradabad Development Authority and Anr., AIR 2011 SC 3001 the challenge was for compensation assessed for the land notified and acquired under the notification pertaining the same village. The Apex Court held in para-14 which reads thus :-
"14. Having carefully considered the submissions of the learned senior counsel Shri Varma, we are of the view that the judgment in Gafar's case does not require reconsideration by this Court. In Gafar's case, this Court had meticulously examined all the legal contentions canvassed by the parties to the lis and had come to the conclusion that the High Court has not committed any error which warrants interference. In the present appeals, the challenge is for the compensation assessed for the lands notified and acquired under the same notification pertaining to the same villages. Therefore, it would not be proper for us to take a different view, on the ground that what was considered by this Court was on a different fact situation. This view of ours is fortified by the Judgment of this Court in the case of B.M. Lakhani v. Municipal Committee, (1970) 2 SCC 267, wherein it is held that a decision of this Court is binding when the same question is raised again before this Court, and reconsideration cannot be pleaded on the ground that relevant provisions, etc., were not considered by the Court in the former case."
6.7 In view of above, it is apt that this litigation be buried at this stage. We are of the firm view that the appeal filed by Page 19 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022 C/FA/4841/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/09/2021 the State is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
(J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) K.K. SAIYED Page 20 of 20 Downloaded on : Sun Jan 16 18:54:50 IST 2022