Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat Thro Dy vs Patel Balchandbhai on 25 April, 2013
Author: Z.K.Saiyed
Bench: Z.K.Saiyed
STATE OF GUJARAT THRO DY. SECRETARYV/SPATEL BALCHANDBHAI PITAMBERDASSINCE DECD. THRO HIS HEIRS C/FA/213/2013 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 213 of 2013 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 214 of 2013 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 698 of 2013 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 37 of 2012 TO FIRST APPEAL NO. 41 of 2012 ================================================================ STATE OF GUJARAT THRO DY. SECRETARY & 2....Appellant(s) Versus PATEL BALCHANDBHAI PITAMBERDASSINCE DECD. THRO HIS HEIRS & 3....Defendant(s) ================================================================ Appearance: MR. ALPESH BHATT, LD. AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1 - 3 MR DG SHUKLA, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1 - 1.5 , 2 NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED Date : 25/04/2013 ORAL ORDER
ADMIT.
Learned advocate Mr.D.G.Shukla waives service on behalf of defendant Nos.1.1 to 1.5 and defendant No.2.
By filing these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( the Act for short) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have challenged the legality of common judgment and award dated 20/08/2009 rendered by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 1740 to 1764 of 1996, by which the claimants have been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.191.50/- per sq.mt. in addition to compensation offered to them at the rate of Rs.8.50/- per sq.mt. by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 16/08/1995.
4. The Executive Engineer, Dharoi Canal Project No.3, Visnagar, made a proposal to the State Government to acquire group of lands of village Unjha, Taluka Unjha, District Mehsana for the purpose of construction of Dharoi Canal Project. On perusal of the same, the State Government was satisfied that the lands mentioned therein were likely to be needed for the said public purpose, therefore, Notifications under Section 4 of the Act was published on 20.08.1992 and thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 17.08.1993. The owners of the lands were served with notices as required by Section 9(1) and 9(2) of the Act. On consideration of the same, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Unjha, specified in the Notification published under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act, were needed for the public purpose of construction of (Sipu) Dharoi Canal Project. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made, which was published in the Official Gazette on December 21,1992. The interested persons were thereafter served with notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per sq.mt. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.mt. for irrigated lands and Rs.6/- per sq.mt. for non-irrigated lands by award dated September 20, 1995. As the compensation awarded by the claimants was totally inadequate and insufficient, the claimants filed references before the District Court, Mehsana, vide LAR No.1740/1996 to 1764/1996.
5. On behalf of the claimants, Shri Balchand Pitambarbhai Patel, claimant of LAR No.1758/1996 has filed affidavit vide Exh.23 and witness Ranchhodbhai Mulchandbhai Patel has filed affidavit vide Exh.24. The claimants have also produced the copy of judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.2147 to 2241 of 2004 , vide Exh.17 to support their case. On behalf of State Government, Shri Sagardan bhesing, Deputy Collector has been examined vide Exh.59. On behalf of the claimants it has been submitted that all the lands were adjoining to each other and bearing good potentiality. The witness stated that village Unjha was considered to be a Taluka place and was hardly at a distance of 5 Kms. from Sidhpur. The witness further stated that the Court that Ahmedabad-Delhi Highway No.8 was passing through Unjha and is a Railway Junction and well connected with road and rail. After mentioning that the population of the village was 1 lac, it was mentioned that it was one of the biggest commercial markets of Asia. The witness also stated the Court that all kinds of educational institutions, G.I.D.C. Industrial Units, Ginning and Cleaning Factories etc. were situated at village Unjha. The witness pointed out to the court that earlier also lands were acquired from his village on two occasions and, therefore, on the basis of awards rendered by the Reference Court in those two cases, the claimants were entitled for enhancement of compensation. The witness also produced certain sale instances relating to the lands of village Unjha for consideration of the Court. In order to substantiate his claim that Unjha town was well developed town, he produced necessary map.
Though this witness was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the acquiring authorities, nothing substantial could be elicited nor the assertion made by the witness that lands of Unjha town which were acquired earlier were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant cases, could be demonstrated to be untrue.
6. The reference Court while deciding the case has considered the compensation case No.36/1991 in which notification under Section 4 was issued on 15.03.1992. Against the said compensation case, the claimants have filed LAR Nos.248/1997 to 350/1997. The judgment and order of Reference Court is produced at Exh.15. Against the said judgment passed by the Reference Court, on behalf of State Government, First Appeal Nos.2147 of 2004 to 2149 of 2004 which has been dismissed by this Court and the order passed by the Reference Court was confirmed, which is produced at Ex.16. The reference Court has categorically observed that looking to the award/order at Exh.15, it appears that land in question was situated in the Sim of Unjha which was permanently acquired for the purpose of Dharoi Canal Project. He has also observed that looking to the fertility of land and the fast development of Unjha and the rise in prize of lands, the market value of the land is decided at Rs.231/- per sq.mtrs. He has observed that in the present case the land is acquired vide LAQ Case No.21/91 in which notification under Section 4 was published on 20.08.1992 and therefore, the period of publishing the notification under Section 4 in the present case and the notification of previous award (Exh.15) are similar. The learned judge has also relied upon the judgment and order in LAR No.413/1999 to 458/1999 for other land at Unjha, which was also acquired for the said purpose of Dharoi Canal Project in which also the market value was considered at Rs.231/- per sq.mtrs. Therefore, looking to the over all evidence on the record, the ld. Judge has considered Rs.200/- per sq.mtr as market value of land. The learned Judge has also relied upon the decision of this Court reported in 9 GLR at page No.752.
7. It is well settled principle of law that previous award of the Reference Court relating to a village, which has attained finality, can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining the market value of similar lands acquired subsequently from the same village. The assertion made by the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants that the lands, which were subject matter of previous award produced at Exh.15, were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case could not be challenged by the acquiring authorities at all. Thus, relevancy of previous award stands satisfactorily established. It is relevant to notice that it is not the case of the appellants that previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of this very village has not attained finality and that it was either modified or set aside by the higher forum. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court did not commit any error in placing reliance on Exh.15 while determining the market value of the lands acquired in the instant cases. Further Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 15/03/1992 in those cases, whereas in the instant cases notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official gazette on 20/08/1992 and, therefore, in view of gap of time in publication of two notifications, the Reference Court was justified in granting benefit of rise in price of lands to the claimants at the rate of 10% per annum, more particularly when it is a well known fact, of which judicial notice can be taken, that prices of lands go on increasing day by day and never remain static. The calculation of amount of compensation payable to the claimants on the basis of previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of this very village produced at Exh.15 is not in dispute before this Court in the instant appeals. On re-appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court, this Court is of the opinion that correct findings of facts have been recorded by the Reference Court to which well settled principles of law have been applied. The learned counsels for the appellants could not persuade this Court to take a view different than the one taken by the Reference Court on appreciation of evidence adduced before it. Thus, the appeals, which lack merits, deserve dismissal.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals fail and are dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment immediately.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) Ankit* Page 9 of 9