Gujarat High Court
Getco Ltd vs The State Of Gujarat & 3 on 6 February, 2014
Author: R.M.Chhaya
Bench: R.M.Chhaya
C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4918 of 2007
TO
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4928 of 2007
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 ?
=================================================== GETCO LTD....Appellant(s) Versus THE STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Defendant(s) =================================================== Appearance:
MR JAYANT P BHATT, ADVOCATE for Appellant(s) No. 1 MR ALKESH N. SHAH, AGP for Defendant(s) No. 1 2 MR KM SHETH, ADVOCATE for the Original Claimants =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Date : 06/02/2014 ORAL (COMMON) JUDGMENT (1) These appeals raise common question of law and facts and common evidence is adduced before the Reference Court, the same were heard together and are hereby decided by this common judgment.
(2) These appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) read Page 1 of 12 C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) by the appellant, acquiring body, challenging the common judgment and award dated 21.12.2006 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.194203/2000 and 213/2000.
(3) The record of the case reveals that the lands belonging to the original claimants situated at Village Khanpur, Tal. Dahegam, Dist. Gandhinagar were sought to be acquired for the purpose of the appellant by the State Government for construction of 220 KV Sub Station. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 12.06.1992, followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act made on 26.09.1992. The proceedings so initiated culminated into an award under Section 11(1) of the Act, which was made and declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 12.08.1993 who, by the said award, determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.6/sq. mtr.
(4) Original claimants, being aggrieved by the same, raised a dispute as provided under Section 18 of the Act, which came to be referred to the Reference Court at Gandhinagar and were registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.194203/2000 and 213/2000. The claimants in Page 2 of 12 C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT the said references raised a demand of Rs.100/ sq. mtr. as the market value of the lands under acquisition. The Reference Court by the impugned judgment and award dated 21.12.2006 determined the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.57.50/sq. mtr. and thereby awarded an additional amount of Rs.51.50/sq. mtr. as additional compensation. The acquiring body i.e. erstwhile Gujarat Electricity Board (GEB) and now substituted by the Executive Engineer, Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Limited (GETCO), has preferred these appeals.
(5) Heard Mr.Jayant P. Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellant, the acquiring body, Mr.Alkesh N. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State authorities, and Mr.K.M.Sheth, learned advocate for the original claimants, in all these appeals and perused the paper books supplied by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties.
(6) Perusal of the record indicates that the original claimants have examined Shri Kalidas Shakarabhai Patel and Shri Omprakash Dahyabhai Pandya (at Exh.34 and Exh.36), claimants have also produced on record, by way of documentary evidence, the photocopies of extract of Village Form No.7 / 12 (Exh.1727) and have also produced Page 3 of 12 C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT certificates issued by TalaticumMantri (Exh.28
31). The claimants have also further relied upon a valuation report prepared by the Government approved valuer (Exh.33). Over and above these documentary evidence the claimants have also relied upon previous award rendered by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.57 of 1983 and allied matters wherein the State Government had acquired lands for a similar purpose of construction of 66 KV Sub Station for the appellant at Village Sametri, Tal. Dahegam, Dist. Gandhinagar (being Exh.32). Record further indicates that the original opponents have also examined one Shri Dhananjaybhai Ratilal Bhatt, who was working as Junior Engineer with the appellant (Exh.40). Except that no other evidence is led by the opponents.
(7) Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Reference Court has erred in relying upon the previous award (Exh.32). It was contended that as per the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer population of Village Khanpur was 7,000, whereas population of Village Sametri was 9,000. It was further contended that Village Sametri is situated at a distance from 4 Kms. from Village Khanpur and, therefore, the Reference Court has erred in straightway relying upon the previous award Page 4 of 12 C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT (Exh.32). It was further contended that the lands which were acquired under the previous award (Exh.32) were situated on the main road, whereas the lands in the present case are situated in interior part and away from the main road. It was therefore contended that the market value of the lands under acquisition cannot be equated with the market value fixed by the Reference Court in the previous award (at Exh.32). It was therefore contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award under Section 11(1) of the Act has taken into consideration the geographical location of the lands under acquisition and after considering as many as 12 sale instances of the lands within the vicinity of the lands acquired ranging from 198791 has correctly fixed the market value of the lands under acquisition at Rs.6/sq. mtr. It was contended that considering all other relevant aspects like potentiality of development as well as the nature of the lands award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer determining the market value of Rs.6/sq. mtr. is the correct determination of the lands under acquisition. It was therefore contended that the impugned judgment and award is palpably bad and illegal and the same deserves to be quashed by allowing the appeals and confirming the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
Page 5 of 12C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT (8) Learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State authorities has adopted the arguments made by the learned advocate for the appellants.
(9) Learned advocate for the original claimants has supported the impugned judgment and award and it was submitted that the previous award, is passed in relation to the lands which were acquired for the purpose of setting up of 66 KV SubStation at Village Sametri is as such accepted by the Government. It was further submitted that on the contrary the witness examined by the appellant has admitted in his deposition that boundaries of Village Sametri and Village Khanpur are adjacent to each other. It was therefore submitted that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the previous award (at Exh.32) and, according to the learned advocate for the original claimants, the said evidence was best piece of evidence adduced by the claimants on record to determine the true and correct market value of the lands under acquisition. It was submitted that except the deposition (Exh.40) the appellant, the acquiring body, or the State Government has not adduced any evidence that the lands under acquisition and land at Village Sametri were of different nature. It was therefore submitted that the appeals are meritless and deserve to be dismissed.
Page 6 of 12C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT No other or further submissions are raised by the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
(10) Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the copies of evidence, which were adduced by the parties before the Reference Court as well as the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it appears that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has recorded in his award that the lands under acquisition, situated at Village Khanpur, Tal. Dahegam, Dist. Gandhinagar are situated at a distance of 8 kms. from Dahegam and is situated at a distance of 4 kms. from Rakhial. It is also recorded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that the lands under acquisition are situated on the SouthEast side of AhmedabadModasa State Highway. It is also recorded that on the North of the lands under acquisition on State Highway Jaliya Math S.T. Stand is situated. It is also further recorded that a small building of railway station is situated. The lands under acquisition are near the railway quarters and one Jalaram Tin Factory. It is also transpires from the award that there is a building of Sanskar Uttar Buniyadi School in Village Khanpur very near to the lands under acquisition.
Page 7 of 12C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT (11) On perusal of the impugned judgment and award it clearly transpires that the Reference Court has relied upon the previous award at Exh.32 and on perusal thereof (Exh.32) it transpires that the lands situated at Village Sametri were sought to be acquired for the purpose of construction of 66 KV Sub Station wherein Section 4 notification was published on 20.03.1979. It is further evident from the award (Exh.32) that the Reference Court has determined the market price of the lands so acquired at Village Sametri at Rs.25/sq. mtr. As pointed out by learned Counsel for the original claimants neither the appellant nor the State Government has challenged the award (Exh.32) and the same has attended finality.
(12) It may be noted that the witness examined by the appellant (Exh.40), Shri Dhananjaybhai Ratilal Bhatt, who was working as Junior Engineer with the erstwhile GEB, has in his cross examination has averred that "the distance between AhmedabadModasa road and the lands under acquisition is 5060 mtrs. He has further stated that the boundaries of Village Sametri and Village Khanpur are adjacent to each other."
(13) Considering this piece of evidence therefore the contention raised by the learned advocate for the appellant that the lands under acquisition Page 8 of 12 C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT are at a distance of 4 kms. from the main road deserves to be negatived. Considering the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer Village Khanpur has facilities of school, hospitals as well as the said village is situated on railway line going to AhmedabadPrantij. It is also evident form the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer that Village Khanpur has facilities of electricity, it has primary and higher secondary schools, veterinary hospital, milk dairy center and has also facilities of State Transport. Only because there is some difference in total population would not mean that the potentiality of development in Village Sametri and Village Khanpur were different and distinct. As such though such a contention is raised by the appellant before this Court no evidence is adduced to that effect before the Reference Court and, therefore, on re appreciation of the evidence on record, more particularly the deposition of the witness of the appellant itself and the other documentary evidence and previous award (Exh.32), this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has rightly considered the previous award (Exh.32) as the best piece of evidence and best comparable instance to determine the market value of the lands under acquisition.
Page 9 of 12C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT (14) By the impugned judgment and award taking base price of the previous award (Exh.32) wherein notification under Section 4 of the Act was 20.03.1979, the Reference Court is right in giving 10% rise in 13 years as in the instant case notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 12.06.1992 and has therefore rightly come to the conclusion that the market value of the lands under acquisition is Rs.57.50/ i.e. (Rs.25/ plus Rs.2.50/ i.e. 10% multiply 13).
(15) The contention as regards geographical location of the lands under acquisition contended by the learned advocate for the appellant deserves to be negatived as in the evidence of the witness of the appellant itself it has come on record that the lands under acquisition are situated at a distance of 5060 mtrs. from the AhmedabadModasa Highway. At this juncture it would be profitable to refer to the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vadodara & Anr. Vs. Ramanbhai Haribhai & Anr., 2001(3) G.L.H. 655 wherein this Court has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court and has observed thus:
"7. In the instant case, reliance is placed on the decision rendered by the Reference Court declaring that the claimants or the land losers at village Katol were held entitled to get Rs.14/ per sq.mtr. Considering the difference, the amount is required to be awarded. So far as the village Page 10 of 12 C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT Katol is concerned, today we have disposed of a group of appeals being F.A. nos.4400 to 4407 of 2001 wherein we have held that the claimants are entitled to get Rs.21/ per sq.mtr. In that case the notification issued under Sec. 4 of the Act was published on 19.9.91 while in the instant case, notification was published on 2.10.86. Apart from that, the Division Bench disposed the group of F.A. nos.7642/99 to 7656/99 with F.A.nos.1424/00 to 1438/00 on 23.4.01. The Division Bench (Coram: M.R. Calla and D.H.Waghela, JJ), after hearing the learned A.G.P. and the advocate for the claimants, dismissed the appeals. In the aforesaid cases, so far as F.A.nos. 1424 to 1438/00 are concerned, notification under Sec.4 of the Act was published on 11.8.86. The Land Acquisition officer determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.2.70 per sq.mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.1.50 per sq.mtr. for nonirrigated land. The Reference Court awarded additional amount of Rs.14/ per sq. mtr. by an award dated 31.10.99. The Division Bench in para 6 of the judgment, considered the case of lands acquired at village Katol. The Division Bench held that no interference is called for and confirmed the award made by the Reference Court awarding additional compensation at the rate of Rs.14/per sq.mtr. The lands in the cases before us are of village Boru which is adjoining to village Katol. The Apex Court, in case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others V/S Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another reported in 2001 AIR SCW 2417, pointed out in para 12 that the evidence is to be led on behalf of the State to find the difference of land between the two villages. In that case reliance was placed on exh.16 for determination of the market value of the acquired lands. In para 12, the Court pointed out as under : "So far the other question of distance between the two classes of lands, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some such other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior." The Apex Court further pointed out that "no evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find difference between the two. In view of this the inference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs.10/ per sq. mtr. cannot be sustained."
(16) In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Impugned judgment and award dated 21.12.2006 Page 11 of 12 C/FA/4918/2007 JUDGMENT passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.194203/2000 and 213/2000 shall stand confirmed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(17) The appellant shall deposit the amount as awarded by the Reference Court and as confirmed by this judgment, if not deposited, within a period of 04 (four) months from this judgment.
(18) Registry to place a copy of this order in connected matters.
Sd/ [R.M.CHHAYA, J ] *** Bhavesh [pps] Page 12 of 12