Gujarat High Court
General Manager Oil And Natural Gas ... vs Sp Land Acquisition Officer Oil And ... on 5 February, 2014
Author: M.R. Shah
Bench: M.R. Shah, R.P.Dholaria
C/FA/4182/2008 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4182 of 2008
With
FIRST APPEAL NO. 4183 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA Sd/-
==========================================================
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 ?
===============================================================
GENERAL MANAGER OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
LTD....Appellant(s)
Versus
SP LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATIO
& 1....Defendant(s)
===============================================================
Appearance:
MR RR MARSHAL for the Appellant in both these appeals.
MS NISHA THAKORE AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1 in F.A. 4182/2008
MR DHAWAN JAYSWAL AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1 in F.A. 4183/2008
MR JAYESH PATEL, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 2 in both FAs
===============================================================
Page 1 of 9
C/FA/4182/2008 JUDGMENT
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 05/02/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.00. As common question of law and facts arise in both these appeals, they are disposed of by this common judgement.
2.00. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the common judgement and award dated 16/5/2008 passed by the Reference Court - learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.345 and 346 of 2004 by which the learned Reference Court has partly allowed the said references and has ordered the appellant to pay additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.408 /- per sq.mtr. the common appellant herein - original opponent No.2 has preferred these appeals.
3.00. Facts leading to the present appeals in nutshell are as under :-
3.01. That the land in question situated at Village Limbodara, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar came to be acquired by the respondent No.1 herein for the appellant herein. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) was published on 27/7/1999 and notification under section 6 of the Act was Page 2 of 9 C/FA/4182/2008 JUDGMENT published on 25/4/2000. That the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award under section 11 of the Act in LAQ Case No.180 of 1998 determining and awarding compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.23 per sq.mtr. The claimants were aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and therefore, at their instance references were made under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act to the Reference Court. Both the parties led evidence. On behalf of the claimants, claimant of LAR No.345 of 2004 - Narendrasinh Ranjitsinh Vaghela came to be examined at Ex.24. The claimants produced and relied upon the following documentary evidences :-
[1] Exh.15 Certified copy of judgement delivered by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in LAR Case No.92 of 2005 dated 22/3/2007.
[2] Exh.16 Certified copy of judgement delivered by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in LAR Case No.91 of 2005 dated 22/3/2007.
[3] Exh.17 Certified copy of judgement delivered by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in LAR Case No.90 of 2005 dated 22/3/2007.
[4] Exh.18 Certified copy of judgement delivered by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in LAR Case No.100 of 2005 dated 22/3/2007.
[5] Exh.Nos.19, 20, 21, & 22 Xerox copies of statement regarding deposition of amount as per the orders in the Court in the above stated judgements.
[6] Exh.23 Certified copy of judgement delivered by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in LAR Case No.274 of 2007.
3.02. That relying upon the previous judgement and award of the Reference Court produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 and on the ground and observing that previous judgement produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 are pertaining to the very village Limbodara, by the impugned judgement and award the Reference Court has ordered to pay additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.408/- per sq.mtr. [Rs.431/- (-) Page 3 of 9 C/FA/4182/2008 JUDGMENT Rs.23/- as already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer = Rs.408] with all other statutory benefits which are available to the claimants under the Land Acquisition Act.
3.03. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court, the appellant herein - original opponent No.2
- ONGC has preferred both these appeals.
4.00. Mr.R.R. Marshal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the common appellant has vehemently submitted that as such the learned Judge has committed an error in relying upon the previous judgements of the Reference Court produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23. It is submitted that as such the learned Reference Court while passing the impugned judgement and award has heavily relied upon the previous judgements of the Reference Court produced at Ex. Nos.17 and 23 by observing that the said judgements are pertaining to village Limbodara. It is submitted that as such the previous judgement in the respective References produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 are pertaining to Village Mansa and not village Limbodara as observed by the learned Reference Court. It is submitted that as such there is no further observation and/or finding by the Reference Court that the land situated at Village Mansa and Village Limbodara are having similar potentiality. It is submitted that as such by passing the impugned judgement and order, the learned Reference Court has solely relied upon the judgements at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 on the ground that the same pertain to village Limbodara. It is submitted that as such the said judgements pertain to village Mansa. It is further submitted that even the learned Reference Court has Page 4 of 9 C/FA/4182/2008 JUDGMENT materially erred in ordering to pay interest on the additional compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession or from the date of notification under section
4 of the Act, whichever is earlier. It is submitted that as such under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, the claimants shall be entitled to interest on the additional compensation from the date of possession.
By making above submissions it is requested to allow both these petitions.
5.00. Mr.Jayesh Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original claimants in respective appeals. Ms.Nisha Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 in First Appeal No. 4182 of 2008 and Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 in First Appeal No. 4183 of 2008.
6.00. At the outset, it is required to be noted that as such Mr.Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants is not in a position to dispute that the judgements produced at Ex.Nos. 17 and 23, which have been relied upon by the learned Reference Court while passing the impugned judgement and award are pertaining to the land acquired of village Mansa and not of village Limbodara, as observed by the learned Reference Court. He is also not disputing that as such the learned Reference Court has erred in considering the judgements produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 with respect to the land acquired of village Limbodara. However, has submitted that as such the land at village Mansa (Ex.Nos.17 and 23) are Page 5 of 9 C/FA/4182/2008 JUDGMENT having similar potentiality and as such Village Mansa is situated at the distance of only ½ KM from village Limbodara. It is submitted that as such in the cross-examination of the witness examined on behalf of the claimants, it has been specifically stated that the land situated at Village Mansa are at the distance of ½ KM only. It is submitted that therefore, as such no illegality and/or error has been committed by the Reference Court in relying upon the judgement and award produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23. It is submitted that however, if this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the Reference Court, in that case, Reference Court may be directed to finally decide and dispose of the References on remand at the earliest and within a stipulated time.
7.00. Heard Mr.R.R. Marshal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the common appellant herein - original opponent No.2 - ONGC; Mr.Dhawan Jayswal, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 in First Appeal No. 4182 of 2008 and Ms.Nisha Thakore, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 in First Appeal No. 4183 of 2008 and Mr.Jayesh Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2 - original claimant, in both these appeals.
7.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgement and award the reference Court has solely relied upon the previous judgement and awards of the Reference Court produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 on the premise that the aforesaid judgement and awards produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 pertain to village Limbodara.
Page 6 of 9C/FA/4182/2008 JUDGMENT However, it is factually incorrect. As such the judgement and award of the Reference Court produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 which have been relied upon by the Reference Court while passing the impugned judgement and award, are admittedly with respect to the land situated at village Mansa. Therefore, as such there is an error committed by the learned Reference Court in considering the fact that the judgement and awards produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 are pertaining to land situated at village Limbodara. There is no further discussion and/or finding of the Reference Court that the land acquired of Village Mansa for which the judgement and awards were produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 are having similar potentiality etc. The submission is made on behalf of the original claimants that in the cross-examination of the witness examined by the claimants it has been specifically mentioned that the land situated at village Mansa are at the distance of ½ KM only and therefore, the judgement and awards of the reference Court produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 can be said to be comparable distance. However, as observed hereinabove, as such there is no further discussion and/or finding by the learned Reference Court that the land acquired of Village Mansa and the land situated at Village Limbodara are having same potentiality. The aforesaid was required to be considered by the Reference Court while considering whether the land acquired of village Mansa for which the judgement and award was produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 are having same potentiality and therefore, the same can be comparable or not. Under the circumstances, when the impugned judgement and award passed by the Reference Court is absolutely on a wrong premise that the judgement and award produced at Ex.Nos.17 and 23 are of the same village - Limbodara, but as such are with respect to the Page 7 of 9 C/FA/4182/2008 JUDGMENT land acquired of village Mansa, the impugned judgement and award passed by the Reference Court is required to be quashed and set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Reference Court for its fresh decision in accordance with law and on merits.
8.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above and on the aforesaid ground alone, the common judgement and award dated 16/5/2008 passed by the Reference Court - learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.345 and 346 of 2004 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded to the learned Reference Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence already led. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Reference Court is hereby directed to finally decide and dispose of the References on remand at the earliest but not later than six months from the date of receipt of the present order. Both these appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Registry is hereby directed to send the writ of this order to the learned Reference Court - learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar at the earliest and also directed to return Record and Proceedings of the cases to the Reference Court at the earliest.
Sd/-
(M.R.SHAH, J.) Sd/-
Page 8 of 9 C/FA/4182/2008 JUDGMENT
(R.P.DHOLARIA,J.)
Rafik.
Page 9 of 9