Gujarat High Court
State vs Pagi on 28 November, 2011
Author: J.C.Upadhyaya
Bench: J.C.Upadhyaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/8141/1999 10/ 10 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 8141 of 1999
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 8148 of 1999
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
=========================================
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, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1
Versus
PAGI
HIRA HEMA
=========================================
Appearance :
MR.
K.P.RAWAL, AGP for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR
DF AMIN for Respondents
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 23/09/2010
COMMON
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.KAPADIA) By the instant batch of 8 First Appeals, filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 ( the Act for short) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Appellants State of Gujarat and Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Panam Project, Godhra, have brought under challenge the legality, validity and propriety of the common judgment and award dated 29th May 1999 rendered in a group of Land Reference Nos. 9 to 16 of 1992 by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra, by which the market value of the acquired land of the Respondents ( Claimants for short) in each Appeals, have been ascertained and awarded additional amount of compensation @ Rs.1.25 per Sq. Meter for Kayari land, Rs. 0.75 per Sq. Meter for Jariyat land and Rs.0.10 per Sq. Meter for Kharaba land together with statutory benefit under Section 23(2) of the Act, i.e. 30% solatium on the acquired land and interest under Section 28 of the Act.
As common questions of law and facts are involved in instant batch of 8 First Appeals, with the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for the parties, all the Appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
Few material facts giving rise to these Appeals may be highlighted, which are as under:
3.1 The State of Gujarat intended to acquire the land for the public purpose of construction of Panam Dam Site Ponds Project situated at villate Ratanpur (Maitral), Taluka Godhra of Panchmahals District. The Special Land Acquisition Officer issued notification under Section 4 of the Act, which came to be published in Official Gazette on 21.6.1973. The Land Acquisition Officer, after following the due procedure under the Act, published a Notification under Section 6 of the Act on 9.1.1975 and after hearing the affected persons, had passed his award dated 30.4.1975 in Land Acquisition Case No. 20 of 1973 and awarded compensation for the lands in question as under:
Sr. No. Nature of the land PRICE Per Acre Per Sq. Mtr.
Per Hec.
1.
Good Jariyat 750 0.19 1,875
2. Medium Jariyat 550 0.14 1,375
3. Low Jariyat 350 0.09 875
4. Lowest Jariyat 100 0.03 250
5. New Kayari 850 0.22 2,125
6. Kharaba 40 0.01 100 3.2 Aggrieved thereby, the Claimants, who were the owners of the lands acquired, sought reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Land Acquisition Officer, who referred those References to the District Court, Panchmahals at Godhra, which were placed before the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra ( Reference Court for short) for adjudication.
3.3 Before the Reference Court, the Claimants claimed additional compensation @ Rs.1.25 per sq. meter for Jariyat land, Rs.1.50 per sq. meter for Kayari land and Rs.0.25 per sq. meter for Kharaba land. All these References arise out of the common award, Reference Court consolidated all the References and common evidence was recorded treating Land Acquisition Reference No. 9 of 1992 as main matter.
3.4 On behalf of one of the Claimants, Claimant of LAR No. 15 of 1992 namely Bhedi Kanti Kalu has been examined at Exh.16. The Claimants also relied upon the previous award rendered in LAR No. 186 of 1986 for the land of the same village and for similar period, which has been upheld by this Court in First Appeal No. 18454 of 1991. On behalf of the Land Acquisition Officer, nobody has entered into witness box.
3.5 On appreciation, evaluation and analysis of the evidence on record, the Reference Court, relying upon the previous award rendered in LAR No. 186/1986 by the same District Court, wherein the land in question was of the same village and for similar period, which has been upheld by this Court in First Appeal No. 18454 of 1991, has determined additional amount of compensation together with the statutory benefit under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest under Section 28 of the Act, to which the reference is made in earlier paragraph of this judgment, giving rise to the instant batch of 8 First Appeals, at the instance of the State of Gujarat and Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Officer, Panam Project, Panchmahals at Godhra.
Mr. K.P.Raval, learned AGP for the Appellants submitted that the Reference Court erred in relying upon the judgment and award passed in LAR No. 186/1986, which is confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 18454 of 1991. It is also asserted by him that though the land acquired may be of the same village, unless the date of Notification under Section 4 of LAR No. 186/1986 and the date of Notification under Section 4 of these cases were the same, the amount awarded in the LAR No.186/1986 cannot be made applicable for arriving at just compensation in the cases on hand. It is also highlighted by him that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case was issued in 1973 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was dated 9.1.1975. It is therefore submitted by Mr. K.P.Rawal, learned AGP that the Reference Court has misdirected itself in passing the impugned award, and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be quashed and set aside by allowing these Appeals and thereby dismissing the References sought for by the Claimants.
Per contra Mr. D.F.Amin, learned Advocate for the Respondents in each Appeal supported the impugned award throughout, as according to him, no illegality has been committed by the Reference Court in determining the additional amount of compensation payable to the Claimants. It is also asserted by Mr. Amin that by relying upon the previous judgment and award passed by the same District Court in LAR No. 186/1986 for the land of the same village for similar period and when the said judgment is confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 18454 of 1991, no illegality is committed by the Reference Court in following the judgment in LAR No. 186 of 1986, which has been confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 18545 of 1991. He therefore submitted that the instant batch of eight First Appeals lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. He therefore urged to dismiss all the Appeals.
We have considered the submissions advanced by Mr. K.P.RAwal, learned AGP for the Appellants so also Mr. D.F.Amin, learned Advocate for the Respondents / Claimants in each First Appeal. We have also perused the impugned judgment and award and the set of evidence supplied by learned Advocates during the course of their submissions so also the Record and Proceedings of the above numbered Reference Cases.
There is no dispute that the land in question situated in village Ratanpur (Maitral), Godhra at Panchmahals of the Claimants is concerned, was acquired for the public purpose of construction of Panam Dam Site Ponds Project.
At the outset, it may be stated that law in the matter to be considered while determining the compensation envisaged under Section 23 of the Act is now well settled by catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. There is no dispute that to find out the market value of the acquired land, two methods are available, one is to consider the sale instances of the lands situated in the immediate vicinity of the land acquired / comparable instances of the previous award and the land of the same village and for similar period, and the second method is capitalization of the annual income of the acquired land on the basis of the expert evidence. Where there is no sale of comparable land, one of the methods which may be used to assess the annual income from the land which the owner have been deriving or expected to derive is capitalization of such income by adopting appropriate multiplier. The Supreme Court in the case of Executive Director v. SharadSharad Chandra Bisoi, (2000) 6 SCC 326 = AIR 2000 SC 2619 has reiterated the aforesaid principles.
Keeping in forefront the aforesaid principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in above referred to judgment, whether determination of the market value by the Reference Court of the acquired land of the Claimants can be called just, reasonable, fair, adequate or excessive and on higher side. To answer the aforesaid question, let us examine the evidence adduced before the Reference Court.
On behalf of the Claimants, the Claimant of LAR No. 15 of 1992 Bedi Kanti Kalu has entered into witness box and tendered his oral testimony at Exh.16 wherein, inter alia, he has stated that he has demanded Rs.1.25 per sq. meter for Jariyat land, Rs.1.50 for Kayari land and Rs.0.25 per sq. meter for Kharaba land. He has also testified that his claim is based on the award which was pronounced by the Reference Court at Panchmahals District in LAR No. 186 of 1986. He has also testified that the said judgment is confirmed by the High Court of Gujarat in First Appeal No. 18454 of 1991. He further testified that the land in question of LAR No.186 of 1986 and the land for which the Reference has been sought for are of the same village, i.e. Ratanpur (Maitral), Godhra at Panchmahals District. The Reference Court in the said judgment has awarded additional amount of compensation of Rs.0.750 per sq. meter for Jariyat land, Rs.1.25 per sq. meter for Kayari land and Rs.0.10 per sq. meter for Kharaba land.
On reappraisal of the aforesaid evidence, according to us, when the land for which the References were sought for and the land for which judgment and award rendered in LAR No. 186 of 1986 were of the same village, and when the judgment rendered in LAR No. 186 of 1986 has been upheld by this Court in First Appeal No. 18454 of 1991, therefore, it can be said that the award made in LAR No. 186 of 1986 has reached to finality, and therefore, there is no reason not to award the additional amount of compensation at the same rate, which was granted in LAR No. 186 of 1986.
Learned Judge has determined the additional amount of compensation in terms of the previous award in LAR No.186 of 1986 together with statutory benefit under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest under Section 28 of the Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, no error is committed by the Reference Court in determining the market value of the acquired land and thereby awarding additional amount of compensation in terms of the award which is impugned in the instant batch of eight First Appeals. No ground is made out by the Appellants for interference with the impugned judgment and award.
We find ourselves in complete agreement with the finding, ultimate conclusion and resultant award as no other finding, conclusion and award is permissible requiring our interference in exercise of the appellate powers.
The learned Advocate for the Appellant could not persuade to take a view different than the one taken by the Reference Court on re-appreciation of evidence adduced before it.
Seen in the above context, instant batch of eight First Appeals lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
For the foregoing reasons, instant batch of eight First Appeals fail and accordingly they are dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
Interim relief, if any granted in Civil Applications filed in each First Appeals while admitting the First Appeals shall stand vacated and pursuant to the orders passed in the said Civil Applications, if the awarded amount is invested in FDR in a Nationalized Bank and if the investment in the FDR still continues, the same shall be encashed together with accumulated interest on the FDR and the proceeds thereof shall be paid to the Claimants upon due verification forthwith in terms of the impugned award.
(A.M.Kapadia,J) (J.C.Upadhyaya,J) Jayanti* Top