Gujarat High Court
State vs Iqbalbhai on 4 May, 2010
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CRA/262/2009 4/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
REVISION APPLICATION No. 262 of 2009
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
======================================
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, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
======================================
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 2 - Applicants
Versus
IQBALBHAI
SATARBHAI MOTIVALA & 5 - Opponents
======================================
Appearance :
MR NEERAJ SONI,
AGP for the Applicants.
MR PRASHANT MANKAD
for the Opponents.
======================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date
: 04/05/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. The present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been preferred by the petitioners original defendants to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 27/08/2007 passed by learned 4th Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Civil Misc.Application No.20 of 2001, by which, the learned Judge has dismissed the application submitted by the petitioners to amend the judgement and award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993.
2. The land of the respondents original claimants was acquired by the petitioners under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) and Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award dated 31/03/1993 in Case No.10 of 1991. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer with respect to compensation, the respondents herein original claimants owners submitted the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was referred to the Reference Court. It is to be noted that when initially the award was declared by the Land Acquisition Officer vide order dated 31/03/1993, it was for 18491.37 sq.mtrs of land, which includes the common plot and roads. However, subsequently when the final award was declared on 28/09/1993, it was only for 9523.02 sq.mtrs. of land (actual land acquired excluding the common plot and roads). That the learned Reference Court vide judgement and order dated 18/10/1996 partly allowed the Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993 enhancing the amount of compensation. However, the same was for 18491.37 sq.mtrs of the land. That the judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court came to be confirmed by this Court. It appears that thereafter the petitioners came to know about the error committed by the learned Reference Court in awarding the compensation for 18491.37 sq.mtrs. of land instead of 9523.02 sq.mtrs., as per final award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 28/09/1993. Therefore, the petitioners preferred Civil Misc.Application No.20 of 2001 before the learned Reference Court requesting to amend the judgement and award passed in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993 and to award the compensation for the land admeasuring 9523.02 sq.mtrs. instead of 18491.37 sq.mtrs.
In the meantime, respondents original claimants have preferred Land Reference Execution Petition No.103 of 2000 for execution of the judgement and award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993 and, therefore, the petitioners also prayed in Civil Misc.Application No.20 of 2001 to stay the execution proceedings till final disposal of the said application. That the learned 4th Senior Civil Judge, Amreli vide order dated 27/08/2007 dismissed the said application on the ground that the judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court has been confirmed by this Court and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Reference Court has committed any mistake of mentioning area of the land in numerical in the decree, which is required to be amended. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order passed by learned 4th Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Civil Misc.Application No.20 of 2001, the petitioners original defendants have preferred the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Mr.Neeraj Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners original defendants has submitted that the learned Trial Court has committed grave error in dismissing the Civil Misc.Application and not amending the judgement and award passed in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993 as prayed for. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated that the Hon'ble High Court confirmed the judgement and award passed by learned Reference Court with respect to quantum of compensation and market price and there was no controversy and issue before this Hon'ble High Court with respect to area of the land. It is submitted that when the final award was declared by the Land Acquisition Officer with respect to 9523.02 sq.mtrs. of the land and Reference was with respect to enhancement of the amount of compensation, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court is required to consider only that much area of the land, for which, the award has been declared by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore, when the final award dated 28/09/1993 was declared by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition with respect to 9523.02 sq.mtrs of land, the Reference Court ought to have amended the judgement and award passed in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present Civil Revision Application.
4. Mr.Prashant Mankad, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has tried to oppose the present Civil Revision Application by submitting that the judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993 was confirmed by this Hon'ble High Court and, therefore, the Reference Court has rightly rejected the application submitted by the petitioners to amend the judgement and award passed in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993. Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Reference Court has not committed any error in dismissing Civil Misc. Application No.20 of 2001. Therefore, it is requested to dismiss the present Civil Revision Application.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. It is to be noted that as per the final award dated 28/09/1993 declared by the Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the first award declared by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition in Case No.10 of 1991 was modified and final award was declared to pay compensation for 9523.02 sq.mtrs of the land only instead of 18491.37 sq.mtrs., which was including common plot and roads. When the final award was declared by the Land Acquisition Officer under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for 9523.02 sq.mtrs of the land, the Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation only for that much area of land. It is not in dispute that Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993 was under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation and there was no dispute or lis between the parties with respect to area of land. The judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993 with respect to amount of compensation, came to be confirmed by this Court. It is not in dispute that there was no dispute/issue before this Court with respect to measurement / area of land. Therefore, the learned Reference Court has materially erred in rejecting Civil Misc.Application No.20 of 2001 and not amending the judgement and award passed in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993 solely on the ground that judgement and award passed by the Reference Court has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court. When the final award declared by Land Acquisition Officer is with respect to land admeasuring 9523.02 sq.mtrs., the claimants are entitled to compensation for 9523.02 sq.mtrs of land only, and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Reference Court ought to have amended the judgement and award passed in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993. Learned Reference Court ought to have been right, if there was a dispute/issue before this Hon'ble High Court with respect to measurement and area of the land and the same has been confirmed by this Court. In view of the above, the impugned judgement and order passed by learned 4th Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Civil Misc.Application No.20 of 2001 is required to be quashed and set aside and the judgement and award passed by learned Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993 is required to be amended to the extent that the area of the land acquired and the compensation required to be paid, is for 9523.02 sq.mtrs. of the land only.
6. In view of the above, the present Civil Revision Application succeeds. The impugned judgement and order dated 27/08/2007 passed by learned 4th Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Civil Misc.Application No.20 of 2001 is hereby quashed and set aside and the learned Reference Court is hereby directed to modify the judgement and award passed in Land Reference Case No.9 of 1993 to the extent that the claimants are entitled to the compensation for 9523.02 sq.mtrs of the land only. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
[M.R.SHAH,J] *dipti Top