Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Chandubhai Naranbhai Patel on 26 March, 2018

Author: Anant S. Dave

Bench: Anant S. Dave, Biren Vaishnav

        C/FA/2486/2010                                ORDER




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2486 of 2010


                 SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
                              Versus
                   CHANDUBHAI NARANBHAI PATEL
Appearance:
MR DHAWAN JAISWAL AGP for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1,2
MR MIHIR H PATHAK(5261) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1

 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
        and
        HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV

                            Date : 26/03/2018

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE) 1 This appeal under Section 54 of the Land  Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the  Civil   Procedure   Code,   1908   is   preferred   by   the  appellant   -   original   opponent   against   the  judgment   dated   30.03.2009   passed   by   the   learned  6th  Additional   Senior   Civil   Judge   and   Special  Judge [LAR], Ahmedabad Rural in L.A. Case No.419  of   1995   below   Exh.36   whereby   it   is   held   that  claimants   /   owners   are   entitled   to   get   Rs.63/­  per   square   meter   as   additional   compensation   for  the land acquired in addition to Rs.2.40 granted  Page 1 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER by   the   Land   Acquisition   Officer   and   other  permissible amounts.  

1.1 Para 19 of the judgment dated 30.03.2009  reads as under:

"19 These Land Reference Cases are hereby  partly allowed:
The   claimants   are   entitled   to   get   the  amount   of   Rs.63.00   [Rupees   sixty   three  only]   per   square   meter   for   the   acquired  land   as   an   Additional   Compensation   over  and above the Compensation already awarded  by the Land Acquisition Officer.
The   claimants   are   also   entitled   to   get  increase at the rate of 12% p.a. From the  date of Publication  of Notification Under  Section 4(1) of the Act i.e. 9/8/91 to the  date   of   Award   passed   by   the   Land  Acquisition   Officer   i.e.   30/10/93   as  provided under Section 23 (IA) of the Act.
The Claimants are also entitled to get 30%  Solatium and running interest at the rate  of 9% p.a. For the period of one year from  the date of taking over the possession of  the   Acquired   land   and   thereafter   at   the  rate   of   15%   p.a.   on   aggregated   amou7nt  i.e.   Additional   Awarded   Amount,   Solatium  and   12%   increase   under   Section   23   (1A)  till   the   entire   amount   is   fully   paid   or  deposited.
The   claimants   shall   pay   necessary   Court  fees as per the Undertaking given by them  Page 2 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER subject   to   the   decision   of   the   Hon'ble  Supreme Court.
The   amount   of   compensation   [excluding  interest]   to   each   claimants   is   shown   in  the   Schedule   separately   supplied   and  attached with this order."

2 Notification under Section 4 of the Land  Acquisition   Act,   1894   [for   short,   `the   Act,  1894']   was issued on 09.08.1991 for acquisition  of   land   for   construction   of   Narmada   Canal.  Thereafter,   notice   under   Section   6   of   the   Act,  1894   was   issued   on   19.05.1992   and   notices   were  served under Section 9 of the Act, 1894 and after  hearing the claimants and officers, the award was  declared   on   30.11.1993   under   Section   11   of   the  Act,   1894   whereby   Rs.2.40   per   square   meter   was  awarded   for   the   acquisition   of   land.     The  claimants  / owners   were aggrieved  by  the meager  amount   so   awarded   for   the   land   acquired   under  Block Nos.70 and 75 each consist of 6616 and 6856  square   meters   respectively   for   th   purpose   of  construction   of   Narmada   Canal.   The   land  Acquisition   Officer   has   considered   material  Page 3 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER produced   on   record   and   geographical   location   of  the   land   acquired   which   was   nearby   Dholka   town  Kheda­Dholka­Bagodara   road   and   scope   of   further  development   in   view   of   industrial   units  surrounding   and   situate   in   Dholka   taluka.  Besides,   in   cross­examination   by   learned   D.G.P.  of a witness further reveal that in the year 1991  irrigation   facilities   were   available   in   the  fields and some other documentary evidence, which  included in adjoining villages Pisavada, Ambethi  and Trasad and award was passed based on consent  of the parties.   By applying parameters as laid  down by the Apex court and based on documentary  evidence   exhibited   at   14   &   20   which   were  admitted.  The  learned Reference Court relied on  the following documentary evidence:

[1] Exh.15 - Judgment in LAR No.587/95 of  Dholka [2] Exh.16 - F.A. No.1439/2000 [3] Exh.17 - SLP No. 4517­4532/2000 [4] Exh.21 to 22 - Village Form No.7/12 [5] Exh.23 to 24 - Map The   opponent   Nos.1   and   2   have   also  produced   following   documentary   evidence  Page 4 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER vide list Exh.28 which have been admitted  in evidence:
[1] Exh.29 - Copy of Award.
[2] Exh.30 - Measurement.
[3] Exh.31 - Demand Statement. [4] Exh.32 - Five years sale deed. [5] Exh.33 - Copy of award No.6/91"

3 That against the demand of Rs.100/­ per  square meter by the claimants in juxtaposition to  award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, who  awarded   Rs.2.48   per   square   meter,   the   Reference  Court   also   relied   on   the   decisions   of   the   Apex  Court   for   determining   of   market   value   of   the  land,   criteria   for   enhancement   of   compensation,  powers   conferred   upon   the   Reference   Court   by  considering   parameters   laid   down   by   the   Apex  Court   and   the   relevant   date   of   publication   of  notification   under   Section   of   the   Act   on  19.09.1991 in L.A.R. Case No.587 of and comparing  the above fact with the case on hand where also  notification was issued on 09.08.1991, the basis  for determination of value was arrived at Rs.100  per   square   meter.   The   Reference   Court   further  Page 5 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER weighed with the deposition of the witnesses and  their cross­examination the fact about industrial  development,   residential   societies,   chance   for  non­agricultural   development   and   radius   of   more  than 8 to 10 kms qua distance with taluka place,  etc.     Even   though   fact   remains   that   village  Ambethi of the subject reference was not part of  Dholka Town, but amount was reduced to Rs.63 per  square meter.

4 The contention of the learned AGP about  common   oral   judgment   dated   16.03.2007   passed   in  First Appeal Nos.1504 of 2007 to 1517 of 2007 in  the case of village Valthera of Taluka Dholka in  reference   case   No.L.A.   Case   Nos.295   to   307   of  1996 where the compensation was awarded at Rs.22  per   square   meter   would   apply   in   the   facts   and  circumstances   of   the   case   as   the   distance   of  Ambethi and village Valthera is about 8 to 10 kms  from Dholka. It is also submitted that the Land  Acquisition   Officer   was   justified   in   awarding  compensation at Rs.2.40 per square meter based on  Page 6 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER material available before him and admittedly the  land was situated in Rural area having no scope  of further development in the near future.   5 Having perused the entire record of the  appeal   in   the   context   of   submissions   made   by  learned   AGP   and   the   award   of   Land   Acquisition  Officer   and   Reference   Court,   we   find   that  comparison   was   drawn   by   the   learned   Reference  Court   qua   the   award   of   the   adjoining   village  Trasad   and even  reduced  market   value  per square  meter   in   view   of   topography   of   the   village  Ambethi.   The Reference Court in Para 13 of the  judgment   gave   reasoning   and   findings   for  enhancing   amount   of   award,   relevant   portion   of  which is reproduced hereunder:

"13 ......
As   against   this   ld.   Advocate   for   the  claimants Shri S.G.Patel has orally argued  that   they   have   proved   the   fact   that  village Ambethi and Dholka is adjoining to  each other and further from the map it is  also provided that the last survey number  of village  Ambethi  was acquired. Further,  Page 7 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER the   population   is   around   3000   people   and  the   farmers   were   earning   Rs.40000­00   per  vigha per year as net agriculture income.  It   is   further   argued   that   the   national  highway is passing nearer to the acquired  land   of   village   Ambethi   and   wooden   shop,  factories, residential societies, Kalikund  Temple,   Rice   mills   etc.   are   situated  nearer to village Ambethi and further the  acquired   land   is   situated   nearer   to   the  Gamtal   land   and   village   is   just   situated  3.5 km. away from Dholka.    Now, from the  deposition   of   the   witnesses   and   from   the  cross   examination   of   the   witness   of   the  claimants   and   more   particularly   the   fact  stated during the deposition regarding the  industrial   development,   various   shops,  residential   societies,   Kalikund   Temple  which is famous temple etc. were just near  to the acquired land seems that there is a  chance for non agriculture development and  therefore   naturally   the   price   of   the   non  agriculture land is always high upto three  to   four   times   than   the   agriculture   and  residential   as   well   as   economical  development   has   often   taken   place   and  further the distance of 2 to 3 mk. Between  two villages can not be considered as more  distance   because   the   area   of   each   taluka  place   are   surrounded   at   a   radius   of   more  than   8   to   10   km.   and   therefore   it   is  prayed to award Rs.100.00 per sq. mtr.
Now, considering the arguments advanced by  both   the   side   it   is   clear   and   undisputed  fact that village Ambethi is situated just  adjoining   to   village   Dholka   but   at   the  same time it is also required to be noted  the   fact   that   Dholka   is   a   taluka   place  while   the   Village   Ambethi   is   a   small  village   and   naturally   the   village   is   not  having such facilities which are available  Page 8 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER to   taluka   place   like   S.T.   Facilities,  various   colleges   for   education   railway  facilities etc.  it is also required to be  noted   the   fact   that   infact   the   acquired  land   is   situated   in   village   Ambethi   is  just   adjoining   to   the   acquired   land   of  Dholka   which   seems   that   the   village   land  is starting from the acquired land of this  case   and   it   also   shows   like   the   land   is  acquired   from   Dholka   because   the   survey  number   of   Dholka   is   adjoining   to   the  present   survey   number   and   therefore   the  facilities available tot he land of Dholka  naturally   should   also   available   to   the  acquired   adjoining   land   of   Ambethi.  Infact   only   the   revenue   survey   number   of  acquired land is of village Ambethi but it  seems   like   a   survey   number   of   taluka  Dholka. Further, here at this stage it is  required to be noted the fact that in this  era   of   globalization   period   when   the  economical   development   is   being   increased  broadly and the prices of real estates are  touching   to   the   highest   level   and   it   is  also   required   to   be   noted   the   fact   that  the   World   is   now   became   small   by   way   of  communication   and   by   way   of   even  transportation   and   therefore   3   to   4   km.  distance amongst the two villages is not a  major point and in this circumstances for  determination   of   the   price   of   acquired  land of village Ambethi, all these factors  are also required to be considered.  It is  also required to be kept in mind that it  was   compulsory   acquisition   while  determining the price of the acquired land  of   village   Ambethi.   Further,   it   is  pertinent to note that the other side has  failed   to   produce   any   other   evidence   on  record   upon   which   court   can   rely.   They  only   relied   upon   the   various   documentary  evidence   which   I   have   already   discussed  earlier.   Further,   the   witness   of   the  Page 9 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER claimants   has   admitted   that   in   the  acquired   land   of   village   Ambethi,   the  irrigation   facility   was   available   by  borewell.
In view of the above sets of discussion, I  am of the view that the present claimants  are   entitled   to   get   reasonable   raise   in  the   price   of   the   acquired   land   as   the  claimants  have proved  the equal fertility  and   production   compared   to   the   acquired  land   of   Dholka   and   it   is   the   fact   that  Ambethi is situated just nearer to Dholka  and as discussed hereinabove in detail the  acquired   land     of   present   case   is  adjoining to the earlier acquired land of  Dholka as per the Map produced on record,  there is a chance and possibility for non  agriculture   development   but   at   the   same  time it is also required to be noted the  fact   that   Dholka   is   a   taluka   place   and  therefore   the   price   awarded   to   the   land  owners of Dholka can not be considered as  the price of the acquired land of Ambethi  and   therefore   taking   into   consideration  this point if the total price of Dholka is  reduced   to   certain   extent   then   I   assess  the   market   value   of   the   land   in   question  at   the   rate   of   Rs.65.40   per   square   meter  for   the   acquired   land   as   per   the   Land  Acquisition   Officer   has   already   awarded  Rs.2.40   per   square   meter   to   the   present  claimants   in   respective   cases   and  therefore,   according   to   my   opinion,   the  fair   and   just   amount   of   Rs.63.00   per  square   meter   as   additional   compensation  should   be   awarded   than   it   will   meet   the  end of justice and hence I Award Rs.63.00  per additional compensation".
Page 10 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER

5.1 That   based   on   decisions   of   the   Apex  Court with regard to entitlement of the claimants  to   get   12%   market   value   in   addition   to   the  enhanced   rate   of   interest   and   solatium   u/Sec.  23(1A) for the period commencing from the date of  notification   under   Section   4(1)   of   the   Act   and  other   such   statutory   benefits   and   interest  towards   compensation   under   Section   23(2)   of   the  Act held in paras 14 to 17 as under:

"14 In  view  of  the  decision  given  by  the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a case of  Jashvantbhai   V/s.   Government   of   Goa  reported   in   AIR   1987   Bombay   Pg.   214   that  "the   amended   provision   of   the   Section  23(1A) is applicable to all cases pending  in   any   forum   on   30/4/82   and   the   claimant  is   entitled   to   recover   12%   of   the   market  value in addition to the enhanced rate of  interest and a solatium for the period of  the Act till the date of taking over the  possession   or   the   verdict,   I   am   of   the  opinion   that   the   present   claimants   are  entitled   to   get   the   additional  compensation under Section 23 (1A) of the  Act at the rate of 12% of the market value  in   addition   to   the   enhanced   rate   of  interest   and   solatium   for   the   period  commencing   from   the   date   of   Notification  under   Section   4(1)   of   the   Act   till   the  date of taking over the possession to the  date of award whichever is earlier.
Page 11 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER
15 Further   more,   in   a   case   of  Bhagsing   V/s.   Union   Territory,   Chandigarh  reported   in   AIR   1985   SC   Pg.   1575,   the  Hon'ble Apex Court of the Country has very  clearly   given   the   verdict   that   "the  amended   provision   of   Section   23(3)   is  applicable  to all proceedings  relating  to  compensation   pending   on   the   date   of  commencement   of   the   amended   act   or   filed  subsequent thereto whether before the L.A.  Collector   of   before   the   Court   or   the  Hon'ble   High   Court   or   even   before   the  Hon'ble Supreme Court" and further more in  a   case   of   Govindanbhai   reported   in   AIR  1995   Gujarat   Pg.   200   the   Hon'ble   Gujarat  High Court has very clearly held that the  "claimant   are   entitled   to   solatium  U/s.23(2) of the Act at the rate of 30% on  the   excess   amount   awarded   by   the   Court". 

Thus is view of these  decisions,  I am of  the   opinion   that   the   claimant   of   the  present   cases   are   also   entitled   to  solatium Under Section 23(2) of the Act at  the   rate   of   30%   on   the   excess   amount  awarded by the Court".   Thus, in view of  these decisions, I am of the opinion that  the claimant of the present cases re also  entitled   to   solatium   Under   Section   23(2)  of   the   Act   at   the   rate   of   30%   on   the  excess amount awarded.  

16 The   claimants   are   also   entitled  to   get   interest   on   aggregate   amount   of  compensation including solatium in view of  the   judgment   reported   in   2002(2)   GLH   pg.  435   in   the   case   of   Special   Land  Acquisition Officer vs. Kodarbhai Jenabhai  &   Others   in   which   the   Hon'ble   High   Court  of   Gujarat   has   held   relying   on   the  judgment   by   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of  "Sundar V/s. Union of India (2001 SOL Case  Page 12 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER No.551)   that   "once   it   is   held   as   it  inevitably   must   be   that   the   solatium  provided   for   under   Section   23(2)   of   the  act   forms   an   integral   and   statutory   part  of   the   compensation   awarded   to   a  landowner,   then   from   the   plain   terms   of  section 28 of the Act, it would be evident  that   the   interest   is   payable   on   the  compensation awarded and not merely on the  market   value   of   the   land.     Indeed   the  language   of   S   28   does   not   even   remotely  refer   to   market   value   alone   and   in   terms  talks   of   compensation   or   the   sum  equivalent thereto. The interest awardable  under   Section   28   therefore   would   include  within its ambit both the market value and  the statutory solatium.   It would be thus  evident that the provisions section 28 in  terms   warrant   and   authorize   the   grant   of  interest   on   solatium   as   well"   and   also  entitled to get interest on the aggregate  amount including solatium and therefore in  view of the judgment of the Apex Court the  claimants are entitled to get interest on  solatium.

17 The claimant are also entitled to  get   the   interest   at   the   rate   of   9%   p.a.  for the period  of one year from the date  of   taking   over   the   possession   of   the  acquired   land   and   thereafter   at   the   rate  of 15% p.a. till the amount is fully paid  or   deposited.   Therefore   I   answer   issue  No.1 & 2 accordingly."   

6 In view of the above, we are in complete  agreement with the view taken by the learned 6th  Additional   Senior   Civil   Judge   and   Special   Judge  Page 13 of 14 C/FA/2486/2010 ORDER [LAR],   Ahmedabad   Rural   vide   judgment   dated  30.03.2009   in   awarding   Rs.63/­   per   square   meter  additional   compensation   over   and   above   the  compensation   already   awarded   by   the   Land  Acquisition   Officer.     Further,   the   rate   of  interest  awarded   by the Reference  Court  is  also  in   consonance   with   the   statutory   provisions.  Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with  the   impugned   judgment   dated   30.03.2009   rendered  by the Reference Court.

In absence of any merit, this appeal is  dismissed.

(ANANT S. DAVE, J) (BIREN VAISHNAV, J) P. SUBRAHMANYAM Page 14 of 14