Gujarat High Court
Chandrakantbhai Laljibhai Patel vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & on 14 February, 2017
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: Anant S. Dave, A.Y. Kogje
C/FA/1112/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1112 of 2014
With
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1354 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
===========================================================
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 or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
CHANDRAKANTBHAI LALJIBHAI PATEL....Appellant(s)
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1....Defendant(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS P SATTA, ADVOCATE for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RITURAJ M MEENA, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR LB DABHI, AGP for Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
Page 1 of 7
HC-NIC Page 1 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:55:11 IST 2017
C/FA/1112/2014 JUDGMENT
Date : 14/02/2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. These two appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against judgment and award dated 25.07.2007 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad in a group of Land Reference Cases.
1.1 The Land Reference Cases pertain to acquisition of land for the same purpose and are belonging to same village and though disposed of by separate judgment, are based on identical facts and circumstances and hence, at the request are taken up jointly for hearing and disposal.
1.2 The acquisition was for the public purpose of ONGC project of the lands belonging to village Vitthalpura /Vasana Maragiya, Tal.Mahemadabad, Dist. Kheda. Village Vitthalpura is a locality situated on the outskirts of village Vasana Maragiya. The Special Land Acquisition Officer by its award dated 27.12.2000 has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.15 per sq. mtr. And in the reference cases, by the impugned award, the Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.100 per sq. mtr. The claimants therefore challenged the impugned award contending inter alia that the price Page 2 of 7 HC-NIC Page 2 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:55:11 IST 2017 C/FA/1112/2014 JUDGMENT of the land is far higher than valued by the Reference Court and that the land could have easily fetched hither price at the rate of Rs.200/- to Rs.250/-. 1.3 First Appeal No.1112 of 2014 is by the claimants of LRC No.83 of 2002 in LAQ No.64 of 1997 whereas First Appeal No.1354 of 2012 is by the claimants of LRC No.85 of 2012 in LAQ No.58 OF 1997. The details of the lands are as under:-
LAQ Case LAR Date of Date of Amount of Amount No. No. notification award of compensati claimed u/s.4 LAQ on awarded (Rs.) per by Spl.LAO sq. mtr.
64/97K 83/200 13.04.2000 27.12.200 Rs.15 per 300/-
2 0 sq. mtr.
58/97K 85/200 21.07.2000 27.12.200 Rs.15 per 300/-
2 0 sq. mtr.
2. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Tejas P.Satta for the appellants, learned Advocate Mr.Rituraj Meena for respondent No.2-ONGC and learned AGP Mr.L.B.Dabhi for respondent No.1
3. Learned Advocate Mr.Tejas P.Satta for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the sale deeds and other relevant documents while it arrived at price of the land at Rs.100/-. He submitted that the same Reference Court, in connection with acquisition of land which is situated nearby in the village Bareja, has awarded Rs.150/- per Page 3 of 7 HC-NIC Page 3 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:55:11 IST 2017 C/FA/1112/2014 JUDGMENT sq. mtr. He therefore submitted that the Reference Court ought to have applied the same parameter and ought to have accepted the price at Rs.150/- per sq. mtr. He submitted that the facilities available in village Vasana Maragiya is the same as is available in village Bareja and therefore, the trial Court ought to have followed price of village Bareja.
3.1 Learned Advocate for the appellants placed reliance upon the price of the land which is arrived at and finally accepted in the acquisition for ONGC project in village Mahij. According to him, oral judgment of this Court in fixing price of land of village Mahij is required to be considered.
4. As against this, learned Advocate Mr.Rituraj Meena for the respondent-ONGC submitted that the price of the land arrived at by the Reference Court is justified. He submitted that instance of village Bareja cannot be taken into consideration as village Bareja is situated altogether in different district, i.e. Ahmedabad, also through Bareja, an important national highway is passing and therefore, reliance placed by the appellants on the acquisition of village Bareja is unwarranted. 4.1 Learned Advocate Mr.Meena drew attention to the map from the office of the Settlement Commissionerate and Page 4 of 7 HC-NIC Page 4 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:55:11 IST 2017 C/FA/1112/2014 JUDGMENT Land Records, to which learned Advocate for the appellant has no objection. He contended that village Vasana Maragiya is situated far away from village Bareja and the lands of village Vasana Maragiya are not comparable to any other adjacent lands for the purpose of assessment of price.
5. This Court has heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the documents available on record. A perusal of the map would indicate that village Bareja is situated in Dascroi Taluka of District Ahmedabad. It is approximately 8 kms. away from village Vasana Maragiya and national highway No.8 is passing through village Bareja. Therefore, this Court finds that reliance cannot be placed for assessment of price on the instance of village Bareja.
6. A perusal of the map also indicates that village Vasana Maragiya is situated in Taluka Mahemadabad of Kheda District and is adjacent to village Mahij of the same Taluka. The lands of village Mahij were put under acquisition for ONGC project by Section 4 notification published on 18.09.1997. The decision of this Court in three separate appeals being First Appeal Nos.122 of 2008, 130 of 2009 and 2254 of 2013, which are pertaining to village Mahij, where the Reference Court had awarded an amount of Rs.68/- per sq. mtr., which this Court in Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:55:11 IST 2017 C/FA/1112/2014 JUDGMENT the aforementioned appeals enhanced to Rs.108/- per sq. mtr., thereby granting Rs.40/- as additional compensation over and above granted by the Reference Court. The distance between village Mahij and village Vasana Maragiya is only 3 kms. and therefore, nature of land is also comparable.
7. Considering the aforementioned, this Court finds that the value of the land fixed by this Court in aforementioned appeals for village Mahij can be taken into consideration as reliable instance for assessment of value of lands of village Vasana Maragiya /Vitthalpura.
8. In view of the aforesaid, as the price of the land fixed for village Mahij by this Court is Rs.108/- per sq. mtr. and for such acquisition, Section 4 notification was of the year 1997 whereas Section 4 notification in the present acquisition being of the year 2000, the Court accepts the formula of enhancing the market value by 10% per year, thereby granting increase of 30% in the valuation of the lands. Therefore, value of the lands of village Vasana Maragiya /Vitthalpura is now assessed at Rs.108 + Rs.32 (30% increase) = Rs.140/- per sq. mtr.
9. The appeals are therefore partially allowed. The claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Page 6 of 7 HC-NIC Page 6 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:55:11 IST 2017 C/FA/1112/2014 JUDGMENT Rs.140/- per sq. mtr. Including already awarded by the Reference Court. The award of the Reference Court, thus stands modified to the aforesaid extent and the remaining portion of the award is hereby maintained and hence, the claimants would be entitled to other statutory benefits specified in the award of the Reference Court. Decree be drawn accordingly. R & P, if received, be sent back to the Reference Court. No order as to costs.
(ANANT S.DAVE, J.) (A.Y. KOGJE, J.) SHITOLE Page 7 of 7 HC-NIC Page 7 of 7 Created On Sun Aug 13 15:55:11 IST 2017