Gujarat High Court
Thakorbhai Narottambhai Patel vs Disrtict Collector & 2 on 9 March, 2016
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Z.K.Saiyed
C/SCA/6557/2010 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6557 of 2010
TO
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6570 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
================================================================
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 ?
================================================================
THAKORBHAI NAROTTAMBHAI PATEL....Petitioner(s)
Versus
DISRTICT COLLECTOR & 2....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MANAN A SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAKESH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR ASPI M KAPADIA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 2 - 3
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED
Page 1 of 9
HC-NIC Page 1 of 9 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:04:34 IST 2016
C/SCA/6557/2010 JUDGMENT
Date : 09/03/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The petitioners have disputed the computation of compensation awarded by the Collector, Surat, for the acquisition of right of user for laying down the pipelines through their agricultural fields.
2. Facts being common, we may record them from Special Civil Application No.6557/2010. The petitioners are the owners of different parcels of land situated at Segwasyadla, Taluka Olpad, District Surat. Respondent no.2 Gujarat State Petronet Limited ("GSPL" for short) desired to lay down gas pipeline through the lands of the petitioners. This very pipeline would also pass through various lands of village Variayav, right adjacent to village Segwasyadla. GSPL would have to compensate the persons interested in the land for any damage or loss or injury sustained, as also would have to pay compensation for the right of user at the rate of 10% of the market value of the land on the date of publication of notification under subsection(1) of section 3 of the Gujarat Water and Gas Pipeline Act 2000 ("the said Act" for short). Section 10 of the Act prescribes the procedure for computing such compensation.
3. The competent authority assessed the market value of the land of the petitioners at Rs.700/ per sq. mtrs. and awarded compensation for the user of land at Rs. 70 per Page 2 of 9 HC-NIC Page 2 of 9 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:04:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/6557/2010 JUDGMENT sq. mtrs. under the award dated 25.6.2009. In such award itself, he provided that order for compensation for damages to trees, crops, structures, etc. that may be caused during the work, will be made separately.
4. The petitioners questioned such compensation by filing appeals before the Collector, Surat, who by separate orders dated 22.3.2010 dismissed such appeals. Before the Collector, the petitioners had mainly disputed the valuation of the lands. Their case was that jantri rate for the adjacent village Variayav was Rs.2100 per sq. mtrs. This jantri rate was adopted for compensating the landowners of the said village. They contended that the two villages and in fact, the lands through which the pipeline was laid were adjacent to each other. The competent authority therefore, should have adopted the market value on the same basis as was done in case of village Variayav. This contention was not accepted by the Collector. He opined that the agriculturists of village Segwasyadla would refer to jantri rates of their village when the question of stamp duty on the documents presented for registration would arise. Whenever application is made for grant of the land, they would also rely on such jantri rates for paying the premium. Primarily, on such grounds, he rejected the petitioners' request for being awarded higher compensation. These orders of the Collector, Surat, have been challenged by the petitioners in these petitions.
5. Learned counsel Shri Manan Shah for the petitioners drew our attention to the orders passed by the competent authority as well as the Collector, Surat. He drew our Page 3 of 9 HC-NIC Page 3 of 9 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:04:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/6557/2010 JUDGMENT attention to the map at AnnexureF to the petition showing the precise location of the pipeline and the compensation in connection with agricultural lands of village Variayav and Segwasyadla through which such pipeline passes was awarded, to contend that there were no situational or any other differences between the two sets of lands to enable the competent authority to assess the market value separately.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Kapadia for GSPL contended that the competent authority had adopted correct yardstick. He had referred to three sources for assessment of market value of the lands. He recorded that the recent sale deeds would show the market value at Rs.9.35 per sq, mtrs. As per the panchnama, the lands were valued at Rs.1304/ per sq. mtrs and the jantri rates for the village prescribed the market value at Rs.700/ per sq. mtrs. He therefore, adopted such jantri rates for awarding compensation in terms of section 10 of the Act. Merely because for the adjacent village, jantri rates prescribed were Rs.2100/ per sq, mtrs, the petitioners cannot claim higher compensation on such basis.
7. Section 6 of the said Act pertains to declaration of acquisition of right of user and authorises the Government after following the procedure of the preceding section to publish a declaration of the right of user of the land upon which such right would vest absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances. As per section 7 of the Act upon such publication being made, it would be lawful for any person authorised by the State Government Page 4 of 9 HC-NIC Page 4 of 9 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:04:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/6557/2010 JUDGMENT to lay down a pipeline through the land. Section 9 of the Act envisages certain restrictions on the user of land once declaration under subsection(1) of section 6 has been made. Section 10 of the Act pertains to compensation. Subsection(1) thereof pertains to compensation for any damage, loss or injury sustained by any person interested in the land under which the pipeline is proposed to be or is laid. Subsection(4) of Section 10 pertains to the compensation for right of user of the land and reads as under :
"(4) Where the right of user of any land has vested in the State Government or, as the case may be, the Corporation it shall, in addition to compensation, if any, payable under subsec(1) be liable to pay to the owner and to any other person whose right of enjoyment in that land has been affected in any manner whatsoever by reason of such vesting, compensation calculated at ten per cent of the market value of that land on the date of the publication of the notification under subsec (1) of Sec.3"
8. Under subsection(5) of section 10, if the market value of the land determined by the competent authority is not acceptable to either of the parties, namely, the person interested in the land or the Government, it shall be, on an application by either side to the Collector, be determined by that Collector. Decision of the Collector in this regard would be final.
9. It can thus be seen that the compensation to a person whose right of enjoyment of the land has been effected by laying down the pipeline would have to be calculated at the rate of 10% of the market value of the land as on the date Page 5 of 9 HC-NIC Page 5 of 9 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:04:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/6557/2010 JUDGMENT of publication of notification under subsection(1) of section 3 i.e. the intention to lay down the pipeline through the land in question. It is in this context that the assessment of market value of the land becomes crucial.
10. In the present case, as noted, the competent authority adopted the jantri rates for assessing such market value in case of both the villages namely, Variayav and Segwasyadla. In case of Variayav, jantri rate prescribed by the Government was Rs.2100/ per sq. mtrs. and in case of Segwasyadla, jantri rate prescribed by the Government was Rs.700/ per sq. mtrs.
11. As is well known, such jantri rates prescribe the minimum valuation of the land at which the stamp duty would be collected in case of any transfer of the land of the village. These jantri rates are revised from time to time and operate over a period of time during its currency. Though these jantri rates may provide a dependable guideline for ascertaining the market value of a land in certain circumstances, cannot be applied as a gospel for final determination of such market value. In other words, if there is other evidence on record suggesting higher market value, mere prescription of a certain amount in the jantri rate would not be decisive.
12. We must examine the decision of the authorities on the basis of such parameters. The competent authority himself adopted the jantri rates for assessing the compensation for village Variayav. The map at AnnexureF shows that the pipeline laid down by GSPL passes through Page 6 of 9 HC-NIC Page 6 of 9 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:04:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/6557/2010 JUDGMENT various plots of village Variayav before it passes through bunch of lands of village Segwasyadla and again passes through a couple of lands of village Variayav. There are various other agricultural lands of village Variayav which are either touching the lands of village Segwasyadla through which the pipeline is passing or are in the near vicinity. If therefore, we believe the market value of such land to be Rs.2100/ per sq. mtrs, it defies logic how when the market value of agricultural land of village Segwasyadla which are touching the plots of village Variayav having common boundaries in several cases could be 1/3rd of the value of the land of village Variayav.
13. Even the competent authority noted that the lands of village Segwasyadla through which the pipeline is passing is situated at a distance of 7 kms from the District headquarters at Surat. The distance between the land and the village site is only 1 km. The village comes under Surat Urban Development Authority and is situated in Olpad. Thus the land was part of the urban agglomeration. While referring to various relevant considerations for ascertaining the market value, he also referred to the award for acquiring similar lands in the concerned village or nearby area in proximity of time. Thus even the competent authority was conscious about the valuation of nearby lands acquired in the recent past for the purpose of deciding similar cases.
14. Learned counsel Shri Kapadia is however, right in contending that this near vicinity logic cannot be applied when a continuous pipeline is being laid since the same Page 7 of 9 HC-NIC Page 7 of 9 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:04:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/6557/2010 JUDGMENT logic could be stretched to indefinite length leading to absurd conclusion. Nevertheless, when in the present case we find that the lands of two villages have common boundaries and in fact, land of Segwasyadla are sandwiched by lands of village Variayav through which pipeline is passing, it is simply not possible to ignore such factors. It would be wholly irrational and artificial to evaluate a land of a particular village at Rs.2100/ per sq. mtrs. and that of another village at Rs.700/ per sq. mtrs. merely because the village in which the revenue survey number falls changes, despite the fact that the two lands have common boundaries.
15. If there is any situational difference such as in one set of land abutting on highway and other though of the same village far away from the highway, surely, the assessment of market value could change. However, such are not the facts in the present case. In our opinion, therefore, the competent authority as well as the Collector committed a serious error in ignoring vital and relevant aspects of the matter while assessing the market value of the lands in question. The collector in fact, applied strange logic of the villagers taking benefit of lower jantri rates when it comes to the question of stamp duty or premium. He, without stating so, applied the principle of estoppel.
16. It is directed that the competent authority shall recalculate the compensation to be paid in terms of section 10(4) of the Act by applying market value of the lands in question at Rs.2100/ per sq. mtrs on the relevant date. 10% thereof would come to Rs.210/ per sq. mtr. The Page 8 of 9 HC-NIC Page 8 of 9 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:04:34 IST 2016 C/SCA/6557/2010 JUDGMENT authorities having already awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.70/ per sq. mtrs, the claimants would receive additional compensation at the rate of Rs.140/ per sq. mtrs. The competent authority shall pay the differential compensation with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date the amount is payable till actual payment. Entire exercise be completed by 31.7.2016.
17. All the petitions are disposed of accordingly.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) raghu Page 9 of 9 HC-NIC Page 9 of 9 Created On Wed Mar 16 00:04:34 IST 2016