Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer & vs Hasanbhai Gulbhabhai on 21 February, 2014
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/745/2011 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO.745 of 2011
With
FIRST APPEAL NO.746 of 2011
With
FIRST APPEAL NO.748 of 2011
TO
FIRST APPEAL NO.751 of 2011
With
FIRST APPEAL NO.753 of 2011
With
FIRST APPEAL NO.755 of 2011
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Sd/
=====================================================
Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be 1 NO allowed to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO Whether their Lordships wish to see the 3 NO fair copy of the judgment ?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation 4 NO of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
Whether it is to be circulated to the 5 NO civil judge ?
=================================================== SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER &
2....Appellant(s) Versus HASANBHAI GULBHABHAI....Defendant(s) =================================================== Appearance:
MR ALKESH N. SHAH AGP for the Appellant(s) No.13 MR KM SHETH, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 21/02/2014 ORAL (COMMON) JUDGMENT Page 1 of 11 C/FA/745/2011 JUDGMENT (1) As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and as same set of evidence is adduced before the Reference Court, the same were heard together and are hereby decided by this common judgment.
(2) By this group of appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) the appellant has challenged the common judgment and award dated 08.05.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.426438/2004.
(3) The facts of the case are that the lands situated at Village Pahaj, Tal. Vagra, Dist. Bharuch, were acquired by the State Government for the public purpose of Narmada Project for construction of Trankal Vishakha Canal. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 28.06.2002 followed by a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was made and declared on 21.01.2003. Proceedings so initiated culminated into an award passed under Section 11(1) of the Act, which was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 28.05.2004 whereby he determined the market value of the lands under acquisition and awarded Rs.3.75/sq. mtr. as Page 2 of 11 C/FA/745/2011 JUDGMENT compensation to the respondentsoriginal claimants. Being dissatisfied with the said award the respondentsoriginal claimants raised dispute under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.426438/2004, and raised a demand of Rs.75/sq. mtr. as true and correct market value of the lands under acquisition. The Reference Court vide the aforesaid impugned judgment and award determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.54.75/sq. mtr. in all and has awarded additional compensation amount of Rs.51/sq. mtr. to the respondentsoriginal claimants along with all statutory benefits under Section 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have filed these appeals.
(4) Heard Mr.Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants, and Mr.K.M.Sheth, learned advocates for the respondentoriginal claimants, in all these appeals, and have also perused the record and proceedings.
(5) Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants has taken this Court through the impugned judgment and award and has submitted that the Reference Court has mechanically relied Page 3 of 11 C/FA/745/2011 JUDGMENT upon the previous award (Exh.32) passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1924/1993, which relates to the land acquired for the same purpose situated at Village Rozatankaria. It is further contended that the Reference Court has not considered the cogent evidence on the basis of which the Special Land Acquisition Officer has made and declared the award. It is further submitted that the Reference Court has not appreciated the evidence on record and has erroneously fixed the market value of the lands under acquisition @ Rs.54.75/sq. mtr. and has erroneously awarded additional amount of Rs.51/ sq. mtr. It is therefore submitted that the appeals deserve to be allowed.
(6) Per contra, Mr.K.M.Sheth, learned advocates for the respondentoriginal claimants, has supported the impugned judgment and award. It is submitted that the previous award relied upon by the respondentoriginal claimants is confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No.5514 of 1999 and allied appeals vide common judgment and order dated 23.11.2000 (Exh.33), which is also confirmed by the Apex Court in Petition(s) for Special Leave Appeal (Civil) Nos.75707578/2001 vide common order dated 27.08.2001 (Exh.34). It is further contended that the previous award (Exh.32) is the best piece of evidence and the Page 4 of 11 C/FA/745/2011 JUDGMENT best comparable instance and, therefore, the Reference Court has committed no error in relying upon the same. It is further submitted that notification under Section 4 of the Act in the previous award was dated 05.04.1990, whereas in the present case notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 28.06.2002 and the Reference Court has taken into consideration the said fact and has rightly come to the conclusion that the market value of the lands under acquisition would be Rs.54.75/. Reliance is also placed upon the common judgment of this Court dated 25.03.2011 rendered in First Appeal No.971 of 2011 and allied appeals, which also relate to the same village i.e. Pahaj, wherein this Court confirmed the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. It is submitted that in the said case the market value of the land situated at Village Pahaj is determined at Rs.53/ and therefore it is submitted that these appeals are meritless and deserve to be dismissed.
No other and/or further submissions are made by the learned advocates for the parties.
(7) Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants, on perusal of the impugned judgment and award, record and proceedings as well as the aforesaid common Page 5 of 11 C/FA/745/2011 JUDGMENT judgment and order dated 25.03.2011 passed by this Court rendered in First Appeal No.971 of 2011 and allied appeals, it appears that the previous award (Exh.32) rendered by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No.1924/1993 relating to the acquisition of the lands which are situated at Rozatankaria is confirmed by the Apex Court. On perusal of the award under Section 11 of the Act in the present case, it reveals that the Special Land Acquisition Officer while determining the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.3.75/ sq. mtr. has relied upon three sale instances as well. It appears from the award that the lands under acquisition is situated at a distance of about 1 km. from gamtal and 5 kms. from the national highway. It is also mentioned in the award that Vagra Railway Station is at a distance of 5 Kms. from the lands under acquisition, which is also a taluka place and merely on this basis award @ Rs.3.75/ sq. mtr. is passed.
(8) It further appears that the appellants (acquiring body) have filed their reply (Exh.7) and has mainly contended that the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer is legal and proper. On perusal of the impugned judgment and award it appears that one of the claimants Shri Umarbhai Albhabhai is examined (at Exh.36) and Page 6 of 11 C/FA/745/2011 JUDGMENT the statistician of Bharuch APMC one Shri Narendrabhai Chandubhai Patel is examined (at Exh.38). The claimants have also produced documentary evidence by way of the revenue record (Exh.1224) and have also relied upon the certificate of village, price list of Bharuch APMC (Exh.39). The claimants have also relied upon the previous award rendered by the Reference Court being Land Acquisition Reference No.1924/1993 (Exh.32) and has also produced common judgment and order dated 23.11.2000 of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.5514 of 1999 and allied appeals (Exh.33).
(9) It may further be noted that it is recorded by the Reference Court that in view of the fact that the previous award is subjudice before this Court no oral evidence is adduced by the appellants. Record and proceedings of the Reference Court indicates that no further or other evidence is led by the appellants. On perusal of the impugned judgment and award it appears that the Reference Court has also considered the contention as regards the yield method that was derived by the respondents original claimants. The Reference Court has also noted the fact that the lands under acquisition are near gamtal, which clearly presupposes that it has potentiality of development. The Reference Page 7 of 11 C/FA/745/2011 JUDGMENT Court has also, on the basis of appreciation of evidence, noted that the industrial development has taken place in the surrounding area and has noted that companies of GAIL, IOC, CPF and Gandhar Project are situated within the vicinity of the lands under acquisition and has therefore come to the conclusion that the lands under acquisition has higher residential and industrial potentialities. The Reference Court, considering the fact that the lands under acquisition are situated at Village Pahaj and Village Rozatankaria is situated adjacent to each other, relying upon the previous award (Exh.32), which is confirmed by the Apex Court, the Reference Court has determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.54.75/ and has awarded Rs.51/ as additional compensation. Cumulatively considering all these aspects and on reappreciation of the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the previous award (Exh.32).
(10) It may be noted that this Court by order dated 25.03.2011 rendered in First Appeal No.971 of 2011 and allied appeals has observed thus:
"3. In the impugned judgment and award and more particularly perusing para. 11, it transpires that the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation @ Rs.5685 ps., per sq. mtr., and deducted Rs.375 ps., from the said amount, which was awarded by the Special Page 8 of 11 C/FA/745/2011 JUDGMENT Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act ['the Act' for short]. The Reference Court took into consideration one earlier award passed in L.A.R. No. 1924/1993 wherein certain lands of village Roja Tankaria came to be acquired and in said matter the Reference Court had granted additional amount of compensation @ Rs.22/ per sq. mtr., and in said matter the Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation @ Rs.3/ per sq. mtr., under sec. 11 of the Act and, therefore, in the earlier matter, namely L.A.R. No. 1924/1993 the claimants were awarded compensation @ Rs.25/ per sq. mtr. The Reference Court held that so far as the comparable judgment and award rendered in L.A.R. No. 1924/1993 was concerned, the same came to be confirmed in appeal by this Court and the said award was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court and about that, there is no dispute. In the instant case, the lands of the claimants situated in the outskirts of village Pahaj came to be acquired and evaluating the evidence on record, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that both the villages, namely Pahaj and Roja Tankaria are adjacent to each other. Moreover, as observed by the Reference Court in the earlier award rendered in L.A.R. No. 1924/1993, the notification under sec. 4 of the Act was published on 5/4/1990; whereas in the instant case, the notification was published on 22/1/2003 and, therefore, there was a gap of time of about 12 years and 9 months and the Reference Court further observed that, therefore, as per the settled principles, the claimants were entitled to get appreciation in the value of the land @ 10% p.a. Since in the earlier award the claimants were awarded compensation @ Rs.25/ per sq. mtr., the annual appreciation in value of the land would come to Rs.250 ps., and the same was required to be multiplied by 12.75, which would come to Rs.3185 ps. Adding to Rs.3185 in Rs.25/, net total would come to Rs.5685 ps. The Reference Court, therefore, held that in the instant case, the claimants were entitled to get compensation @ Rs.5685 ps., but in the award under sec. 11 of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has offered compensation @ Rs.375 ps., per sq. mtr., and the same was required to be deducted and, therefore, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to recover additional compensation @ Rs.5310 ps., rounded off at Rs.53/ per sq. mtr.
4. Nothing is submitted as to why the above observations made by the Reference Court in para. 11 in the impugned judgment and award is either contrary to the evidence on record or is erroneous. When such is the situation, this Court does not find any reason even at this stage to interfere with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court. Resultantly, the appeals lack merits and do not deserve admission."Page 9 of 11
C/FA/745/2011 JUDGMENT (11) It may be noted that the lands acquired in the said judgment were situated at village Pahaj i.e. the same village. It may further be noted that this Court vide judgment dated 24.01.2014 passed in First Appeal No.3024 of 2012 has also relied upon the similar judgment and has dismissed the appeals filed by the government.
(12) In absence of any evidence to the contrary and on reappreciation of evidence on record as it is and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award this Court is of the opinion that the reliance placed for by the Reference Court upon the previous award (Exh.32) and further order of this Court, which is confirmed by the Apex Court (Exh.34) is legal and proper. The Reference Court has rightly considered the previous award (Exh.32) to be the best comparable instance to consider the market value of the lands under acquisition. Also considering the potentiality of development of the lands under acquisition this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the previous award (Exh.32) wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act is issued on 05.04.1990 and has given 10% increase per year and has determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.54.75/. On the overall reappreciation of the evidence therefore the impugned judgment and Page 10 of 11 C/FA/745/2011 JUDGMENT award deserves to be confirmed and the appeals being meritless deserve to be dismissed.
(13) Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs. Record and proceedings be sent to the Reference Court.
(14) Registry to place a copy of this order in connected matters.
Sd/ [R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh [pps] * Page 11 of 11