Gujarat High Court
State vs Mukhi on 21 February, 2011
Author: J.C.Upadhyaya
Bench: J.C.Upadhyaya
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/908/1993 5/ 5 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 908 of 1993
To
FIRST
APPEAL No. 915 of 1993
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
=========================================
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 & 1 - Appellant(s)
Versus
MUKHI
VELABHAI MEHABHAI - Defendant(s)
=========================================
FA
NO. 908 OF 1993 TO 914 OF 1993
Appearance
:
MS SACHI MATHUR, AGP
for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1,
FA
NO. 915 OF 1993
Appearance
:
MS SACHI
MATHUR, AGP for Appellant(s) : 1 - 2.
MR JV JAPEE for Defendant(s)
: 1 - 2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE J.C.UPADHYAYA
Date
: 21/02/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. This group of First Appeals arises out of the common judgment and award rendered by learned Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar on 26th April, 1991 in Land Reference Case No. 950 of 1998 to 957 of 1998.
2. Non-irrigated lands of the claimants went in acquisition. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act' for short) came to be published on 03.04.1986 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 10.02.1987. Land Acquisition Officer conducted the inquiry and determined Rs. 25 per Are (25 paisa per Sq. Mtr.). The claimants felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation was very meager and less and therefore they preferred aforesaid Land Reference Cases before the Reference Court and claimed Rs. 400 per Are. The Reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, and more particularly, adopting the method of capitalization for ascertaining the market value of the lands, came to the conclusion that the claimants used to take crops of Juvar and Makai and the Reference Court on scrutinizing the evidence came to the conclusion that production of the crops was 30 Mun per one Are and then considered the price list produced at Exh. 21 before the Reference Court and considering the price of the crops and the yield of the crops from the land and adopting the method of capitalization, the Reference Court ascertained the market value of the land at Rs. 200 per one Are (Rupees 2 per Sq. Mtr.). Therefore, in all the eight references, the maximum amount awarded by the Reference Court was Rs. 41,880.96ps. in Reference Case No. 954 of 1988 and the lowest amount awarded by the Reference Court was Rs. 7,862.52ps. in Reference Case No. 951 of 1988. However, the State felt that the amount awarded by the Reference Court was exorbitant and very high and therefore challenged the impugned judgment and award in this group of appeals.
3. Ms. Mathur, learned A.G.P. representing the appellants submitted that the Collector in the award under Section 11 of the Act has rightly come to the conclusion that the lands being non-irrigated lands, the claimants were entitled to recover 25 paisa per sq. mtr. as price of the land. It is further submitted that the method adopted by the Reference Court to ascertain the market value of the land was based on assumption and presumption. There was no cogent evidence on record to the effect that the lands under acquisition were cultivated by the claimants, and if yes, what was its annual yield. Therefore, Ms. Mathur, learned A.G.P. has submitted that the Reference Court committed serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to recover Rs. 2 per Sq. Mtr.
4. None appeared for the respondents.
5. I have examined the Record & Proceedings together with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court. There is no dispute that the lands in acquisition were non-irrigated lands. Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published on 03.04.1986 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 12.02.1987. Land Acquisition Officer delivered his award on 12.08.1987 and the Land Acquisition Officer came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to recover Rs. 25 per Are (25 paisa per Sq. Mtr.). Examining the record of the case, it further transpires that the claimants challenged the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act and claimed Rs. 400/- per one Are (Rupees 4 per Sq. Mtr.).
6. It seems that before the Reference Court, the claimants adduced the evidence to the effect that various crops like Cotton, Tuver, Groundnuts, etc. were used to be produced in the lands. They also produced copies of revenue records like, Village Form No. 7 & 12, to show that the lands were cultivated. They also produced price index showing the price prevalent of the various crops at the relevant time. Ultimately, in para 12 in the impugned judgment and award, adopting the method of capitalization, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to recover Rs. 200/- per one Are (Rupees 2 per Sq. Mtr.).
7. I have re-appreciated and re-analyzed the evidence on record. I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court while analyzing and scrutinizing the oral and documentary evidence on record and the ultimate conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court that the claimants were entitled to recover Rs. 2 per Sq. Mtr. (Rs. 200/- per one Are). As stated above, even the total amount awarded by the Reference Court is very small amount, as in Reference Case No. 954 of 1988 the maximum amount awarded by the Reference Court comes to Rs. 41,780.96ps. and the minimum amount comes to Rs. 7862.50ps. in Reference Case No. 951 of 1988.
8. In the above view of the matter, I find no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court. The appeals, therefore, deserve dismissal.
9. In the foregoing reasons the appeals are dismissed without any order as to costs. Interim stay, if any, stands vacated.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) jani Top