Gujarat High Court
Ongc vs Collector on 30 June, 2011
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/517/2000 10/ 10 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No.517 of 2000
To
FIRST
APPEAL No.521 of 2000
With
FIRST
APPEAL No.522 of 2000
To
FIRST
APPEAL No.544 of 2000
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Sd/-
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Sd/-
========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
YES
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
NO
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 ?
NO
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
NO
========================================================
ONGC
LTD. - Appellant(s)
Versus
COLLECTOR
& 1 - Defendant(s)
========================================================
Appearance
:
FIRST
APPEAL Nos.517-521 of 2000
MR
RAJNI H MEHTA with MR VALMIK VYAS for Appellant: 1
MR NEERAJ SONI
AGP for Defendant(s) : 1,
MR BS PATEL for Defendant(s) : 2,
FIRST
APPEAL Nos.522-544 of 2000
MR
RAJNI H MEHTA with MR VALMIK VYAS for Appellant: 1
MR NEERAJ SONI
AGP for Defendant(s) : 1,
MR BS PATEL with MR KEYUR VYAS for MR
PRAKASH K JANI for Defendant(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
Date
: 30/06/2011
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) As all the appeals are inter-connected and common question of law arises, they are being considered by this Court by common judgment.
The relevant facts in First Appeal Nos.517/2000 to 521/2000 are that the lands located at Village Palavasna were to be acquired for the project of ONGC, Mahensana. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') was published on 29.09.1985 and the notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 20.12.1986 and the award thereafter was passed on 28.12.1988. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at Rs.18/sq.mtr. As the land owners of the aforesaid lands were not satisfied with the said compensation, they raised dispute under section 18 of the Act, which ultimately came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Land Acquisition Reference Nos.462/1992 to 466/1992. The Reference Court, in the conclusion of the references, assessed the market price of the lands at the rate of Rs.50/sq.mtr. and directed the additional amount of compensation to be paid at Rs.32/sq.mtr. (as Rs.18/sq.mtr was already paid to the claimants as the compensation), plus statutory benefits under section 23(1A) of the Act for increase in the price, solatium under section 23(2) of the Act and the interest under section 28 of the Act. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals.
The relevant facts in group of First Appeal Nos.522/200 to 544/2000 are that the lands were to be acquired for the project of ONGC, Mehsana, located at Village Heduva Hanumantpura. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 10.10.1985 and the notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 31.07.1986 and thereafter award was passed under section 11 of the Act on 07.10.1988 whereby the Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation of Rs.14/- to Rs.18/- per sq.mtr. As the claimants were not satisfied with the award, they raised dispute demanding compensation of Rs.100/sq.mtr. Such dispute was referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Land Acquisition Reference Nos.1743/1991 to 1765/1991. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the references, assessed the market price of the lands at Rs.85/sq.mtr and Rs.70/sq.mtr and, therefore, directed for payment of the additional compensation of Rs.67/- and Rs.56/- per sq.mtr. respectively. Additionally the Reference Court awarded statutory benefits under Sections 23(1A) and 23(2) of the Act. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court.
We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Mr.Vyas with Mr.Mehta as well as Mr.Patel and Mr.Keyur Vyas for Mr.P.K.Jani on behalf of the original claimants in the respective appeals and Mr.Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Special Land Acquisition Officer in all matters.
We may record that initially in group of First Appeal Nos.522/2000 to 544/2000 and allied appeal this Court (Coram: N.G. Nandi & D.P. Buch, JJ) had decided the appeals and vide judgment dated 22.12.2003 had fixed the market value of the lands at Rs.54/- as against the market value fixed by the Reference Court plus the statutory benefits as awarded by the Reference Court. Against the said decision the matters were carried before the Apex Court by preferring Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).8132 of 2004 and allied matters wherein it was observed by the Apex Court that there is apparent mistake on the face of the record as far as the notifications are concerned and, therefore, the Apex Court observed for review to be filed by the petitioners therein i.e. the appellants herein. Thereafter, the review applications were filed before this Court being Misc. Civil Application Nos.958 of 2008 and allied matters, which came to be allowed by this Court (Coram: R.M. Doshit & Sharad D. Dave, JJ) vide order dated 17.07.2008. Under these circumstances, group of First Appeal Nos.522/2000 to 544/2000 is required to be heard afresh on merits.
As such, as indicated earlier, there are two sets of lands one located at Village Palavasna and another located at Village Heduva Hanumantpura. So far as the lands located at Village Heduva Hanumantpura are concerned, which is the subject matter of First Appeal Nos.522/2000 to 544/2000, it is an undisputed position that the same is covered by the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal Nos.5711 of 2000 and allied matters whereby the Apex Court, for the acquisition of the lands at the very Village Heduva Hanumantpura in the case where the Notification under section 4 of the Act was published on the very date i.e. 10.10.1985, has fixed the compensation at Rs.38/sq.mtr. for the agricultural lands and Rs.50/sq. mtr. for non-agricultural lands. As submitted by the learned advocate for the appellants, there is no acquisition of the lands in the present group for non-agricultural lands and all lands at Village Heduva Hanumantpura are agricultural lands. We may, for ready reference, reproduced the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5711 of 2000 and allied matters dated September 27, 2000 as under:
" Leave granted.
After hearing Sri Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General and considering the reasoning given by the Reference Court, and in particular the Reference to the Award of Rs.85/- per sq. metre, Land Acquisition Reference No.449/88 relating to village Heduva Hanumantpura and after noting the fact that the acquisition concerned in that case was in respect of 670 sq.metres and the fact that village is more or less adjacent to this village and also keeping in mind the reasons given by the Reference Court and the High Court, we are of the view that, so far as agricultural lands are concerned, the compensation should be at Rs.38/- per sq. metre, rather than Rs.42/- per sq.metre as awarded by the High Court.
In this connection, we have also kept in mind a document referred to by the Land Acquisition Officer at Sl. No.24 in his Award with regard to Block No.153 which works out at Rs.35/- per sq.metre.
The appeals are allowed in part, reducing the compensation for agricultural lands from Rs.42/- per sq. metre to Rs.38/- per sq.metre. The award of Rs.50/- per sq. metre for the non-agricultural lands will however remain.
The appeals are allowed to this extent and disposed of accordingly. No costs."
The learned counsel appearing for the respondents-claimants has not been able to show any distinguishing circumstances leading this Court not to take the same view for the fixation of the compensation. Under these circumstances, we find that so far as the acquisition of the lands at Village Heduva Hanumantpura is concerned, since the Apex Court has also fixed the compensation at Rs.38/sq.mtr. as against Rs.85/sq.mtr., as awarded by the Reference Court, the same view deserve to be taken in the present case inasmuch as the compensation for the lands in question at Village Heduva Hanumantpura would be Rs.38/sq.mtr. As the amount of Rs.14/- to Rs.18/- per sq.mtr. has already been awarded as compensation by the Land Acquisition Officer, such amount qua the claimants concerned will be required to be deducted and, therefore, the net amount of compensation for the claimants, who had received the compensation at Rs.14/sq.mtr., they would get additional compensation at Rs.24/sq.mtr. and those claimants who had received the compensation of Rs.18/sq.mtr. would be entitled to receive the additional compensation of Rs.20/sq.mtr. Under these circumstances, the common judgment and award, which is the subject matter of the Reference Court, which is impugned in First Appeal Nos.522/2000 to 544/2000 would be required to be modified accordingly, so far as the principal amount of compensation is concerned.
However, the learned advocate for the appellants submitted that boundary of Village Heduva Hanumantpura and the boundary of at Village Palavasna are touching to each other. He also submitted that in the decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5711 of 2000 and allied matters certain lands were also acquired at village Palavasna wherein the Apex Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.38/sq.mtr. but he fairly submitted that in those cases the notifications under section 4 of the Act were published on 27.05.1982 and not in the year 1985 as in the present case. The submission of the learned advocate for the appellants is that this Court may fix the same amount of compensation even in the case of the lands located at village Palavasna treating it at par with the lands located at Village Heduva Hanumantpura in group of First Appeal Nos.517/2000 to 521/2000.
The perusal of the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5711 of 2000 and allied matters reproduced hereinabove, shows that the Apex Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.38/sq.mtr. even for the lands at Village Palavasna but such figure of fixation of compensation is to be understood by keeping in mind the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act and it cannot be read in absolute to say that Rs.38/sq.mtr. shall be the compensation for the lands at Village Palavasna irrespective of the date of the notification under section 4 of the Act. It is hardly required to be stated that the market price is to be considered for the purposes of awarding of the compensation and the relevant date for the market price or the market value of the lands would be the notification under section 4 of the Act. If the compensation is fixed by the Apex Court as per the above referred decision for the lands at Village Palavasna at Rs.38/sq.mtr. in cases where notifications under section 4 of the Act was published on 27.05.1982, it would be reasonable to construe that in a case where the acquisition by notification under section 4 of the Act is on 27.05.1982, the appropriate market value and the compensation shall be at Rs.38/sq.mtr. for the lands located at village Palavasna. It is an admitted position that for the acquisition in question notification under section 4 of the Act is dated 20.09.1985 i.e. more than three years and to be conservative, it will be approximately three years latter to the earlier case, in which the Apex Court fixed the compensation at Rs.38/sq.mtr. It is by now well settled that in normal circumstances appreciation is to be considered @ 10% p.a. If the time gap of three years is taken into consideration to such amount of appreciation, it would come to Rs.11.40/sq. mtr. keeping in view that the period is more than three years, such figure can be rounded at Rs.12/sq.mtr. and if added to the principal amount of Rs.38/sq.mtr. it would come to Rs.50/sq.mtr. as the appropriate compensation for the acquisition of the land at Village Palavasna.
The attempt was made by the learned advocate for the appellants to contend that as the boundaries of Village Heduva Hanumantpura and Village Palavasna are touching to each other, this Court may take the basis of the lesser amount of compensation as fixed by the Apex Court for Village Heduva Hanumantpura on the premise that the lands at Village Palavasna are at par since the boundaries are touching to each other. It is true that in normal circumstance if the boundaries are touching of both the villages, the Court may take the view that the value of the lands may be more or less the same but such principle cannot be applied by way of a straitjacket formula in all cases if there are valid and distinguish circumstances. Even if the boundaries are touching to each other, there can be a different valuation for the land of a different village. As observed earlier in the present case one of the valid circumstances is that for the lands located at Village Palavasna in a case where Notification under section 4 of the Act was dated 27.05.1982, the Apex Court found it appropriate to award compensation at Rs.38/sq.mtr. and, therefore, under these circumstances, we find that parity as sought to be canvassed for all purposes, including that for fixation of compensation for the lands at Village Heduva Hanumantpura cannot be given and hence, the contention cannot be accepted.
In view of the aforesaid observations, if the principal amount of compensation for the acquisition of the land at Village Palavasna is considered as Rs.50/sq.mtr., since the amount of Rs.18/sq.mtr. is already paid as compensation, the additional compensation would be Rs.32/sq.mtr. and it appears that the Reference Court has awarded the same amount of compensation. Under these circumstances, no interference to the judgment and the award of the Reference Court in group of First Appeal Nos.517/2000 to 521/2000 would be called for so far as the principal amount of compensation is concerned.
Learned counsel for the appellants in both group of appeals did raise a contention that the interest, as awarded by the Reference Court from the date of taking over the compensation or the date of award whichever is earlier, is improper and it was submitted that it has to be from the date of award, even if the possession is taken over earlier than the award.
In our view it was neither contended before the Reference Court nor any material is produced before this Court to show that the date of taking over the possession is prior to the date of award. Further, even if such is the position, there has to be an evidence to that effect. In our considered view, such is a mix question of facts and law and in absence of any evidence it is not possible for us to take a different view than the view taken by the Reference Court for the purposes of awarding of the interest as per the requirement of Section 28 of the Act. Under the circumstances, the said contention cannot be accepted.
In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion, First Appeal Nos.517/2000 to 521/2000 are dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
So far as First Appeal Nos.522/2000 to 544/2000 are concerned, it is observed and directed that the original claimants shall be entitled to the additional compensation at Rs.20/- and Rs.24/sq.mtr. respectively, as observed in the earlier portion of the judgment. The other statutory benefits, as awarded by the Reference Court under section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act, are not required to be interfered with, save and except to the extent that on account of reduction of principal amount of compensation, such benefits shall get proportionately reduced. Hence, group of First Appeal Nos.522/2000 to 544/2000 shall stand partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances no order as to costs.
Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants lastly contended that the amount of compensation has not been fully deposited even if the view taken by this Court in the present case is to be considered. Under these circumstances, the amount of compensation together with interest and cost, if not deposited shall be deposited within a period of 08 (eight) weeks. Investment, if any, already made pursuant to the interim order shall be appropriated by the Reference Court for payment to the claimants as per the present judgment. In case if there is any surplus, the same shall be refunded to the appellants. Record & proceedings be returned to the Reference Court.
Sd/-
[JAYANT PATEL,J] Sd/-
[ R.M.CHHAYA, J] *** Bhavesh* Top