Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Electricity Board vs Respodent No.1 Transposed As Appellant ... on 27 February, 2018
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
C/FA/1231/1992 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1231 of 1992
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1232 of 1992
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1233 of 1992
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1234 of 1992
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1340 of 1993
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 174 of 2009
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1233 of 1992
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 327 of 2001
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1232 of 1992
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 328 of 2001
In
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1234 of 1992
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI sd/-
====================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed NO
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of NO
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of NO
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
====================================================
Page 1 of 8
C/FA/1231/1992 JUDGMENT
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD
Versus
RESPODENT NO.1 TRANSPOSED AS APPELLANT NO.2
====================================================
Appearance:
MR MD RANA(694) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
MR TIRTHRAJ PANDYA, AGP for the RESPONDENT No.2
MR UMESH TRIVEDI for MR RR TRIVEDI(941) for the
RESPONDENT(s) No. 3,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4
====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 27/02/2018
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. All these First Appeals and CrossObjections arise out of the common award dated 19.06.1990 passed by the 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot District, at Gondal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') in LAQ Nos.120 to 124 of 1983.
2. It appears that the agricultural lands, bearing Survey Nos.95, 96, 97, 100 and 101 situated in the sim of Village Pithadiya, Taluka Jetpur, were sought to be acquired by the State Government for the public purpose. The Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') was published on 04.12.1980 and Notification under section 6 was published on 02.02.1982. The Land Acquisition Officer had published the award on 30.11.1982.
3. The claimants being not satisfied with the said Page 2 of 8 C/FA/1231/1992 JUDGMENT Award, the Land Acquisition Officer at their request had referred the cases to the Reference Court, which were registered as LAQ Nos.120/1983 to 124/1983. The Reference Court after considering the evidence on the record passed the impugned award. Being aggrieved by the said award, the present appeals have been filed by the acquiring body Gujarat Electricity Board and the crossobjections have been filed by the claimants in First Appeal No.1232 of 1992, First Appeal No.1233 of 1992 and First Appeal No.1234 of 1992 in respect of Survey Nos.95, 96 and 97.
4. It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Mr.M.D.Rana for the appellants in all the appeals that Reference Court had awarded very high amount of compensation without any cogent evidence on the record. According to him, only one claimant was examined on behalf of all the claimants, and the claimants had not produced any cogent documentary evidence in support of their claims. He therefore has prayed to reduce the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants.
5. However, learned Advocate Mr.Umesh Trivedi for the concerned crossobjectors vehemently submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in not awarding the higher rate of compensation considering the fact that the plots of GIDC were situated in the vicinity of the acquired land and the lands in question had Page 3 of 8 C/FA/1231/1992 JUDGMENT great potentiality of development. Mr.Trivedi also relied upon the oral evidence of the claimant Shri Gulabrai Sundarlal and the sale deeds at Exh.24 and Exh.25 to submit that that they were comparable instances for awarding compensation.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by learned Advocates for the parties and to the documents on record as also the impugned award passed by the Reference Court, it appears that the claimants in order to claim compensation as prayed for had examined one of the claimants Shri Gulabrai Sundarlal on behalf of all the claimants, who happened to be the owner of Survey No.100 paiki. According to him, Survey Nos.95, 96, 97, 98, 99 and 101 were situated adjoining to Survey No.100 and that the GIDC had sold one plot to one Morarjibhai at the rate of Rs.12/ per Sq. Yrd. as per Exh.25. He had also stated that the lands in question were situated in the nearby area of GIDC.
7. Though heavy reliance has been placed by Mr.Trivedi on the said deposition for awarding higher compensation, the said evidence is hardly of any assistance to the claimants. It is pertinent to note that the plots at GIDC were situated at the village Jetpur, whereas the lands in question were situated in the village Pithadiya. Even if the plots of GIDC were situated in the same village, that could not be Page 4 of 8 C/FA/1231/1992 JUDGMENT the only factor for determining the compensation to the lands in question. Even in the same village, no two lands command the same market value. As per the settled legal position, the burden is always on the claimants to prove the market value of the lands sought to be acquired, and the courts should take pragmatic approach adopting realistic standards in evaluation.
8. At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Basant Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1996) 11 SC 542, in which the Supreme Court has laid down the principles governing the determination of compensation:
"5. Shri N.C. Jain, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, contended that in RFA No.55 of 1970 Raghuvir Singh vs. Union of India arising out of the same notification, another Division Bench of the High Court had determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.8700/- per bigha and less Rs.500 per bigha for the notified lands; and similar was the view taken by another Bench of that Court in LPA No.137 of 1980 and batch decided on April 19.04.1991 titled Chet Ram and Ors. vs. Union of India. All these lends being situated in the same village, the appellants are also entitled to the same rate of compensation. The Union of India had not filed any appeals against those cases. The lands are possessed of same potential value and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the same compensation. We had adjourned the case on the last occasion, as no one appeared for the Union Of India; Since, even today, no one is appearing for the Union of India, we have taken assistance of Shri Jain and have waded through the entire material evidence. The question is whether the appellants are entitled to the same compensation as was determined by the High Court in the appeals arising out of Raghubir Singh case and Chet Ram case? It has been firmly Page 5 of 8 C/FA/1231/1992 JUDGMENT settled law by beadroll of decisions of this Court that the Judge determining the compensation under Section 23(1) should sit in the arm chair of a willing prudent purchaser in an open market and see whether he would offer the same amount proposed to be fixed as market value as a willing and prudent buyer for the same or similar land, i.e., land possessing all the advantageous features and of same extent. This test should always be kept in view and answer affirmatively, taking in to consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. If feats of imagination are allowed to sway he out steps his domain of judicial decision and lands in misconduct amenable to disciplinary law. We have gone through the record and judgments in Chet Ram case and Raghubir Singh case decided by the two Division Benches. The learned judges have adopted the principal that the entire lands in the village shall be treated as one unit and the compensation shall uniformly be determined on that basis. The principal is wholly unsustainable in law and cannot be a valid ground for determination of compensation. It is common knowledge that even in the same village, no two lands command same market value. The lands abutting main road or national highway command higher market value and as the location goes Backward, market value of interior land would less even for same kind of land. It is a settled legal position that the lands possessed of only similar potentiality or the value with similar advantages offer comparable parity of the value; it is common knowledge that the lands in the village spread over the vast extent. In this case it is seen that land is as vast as admeasuring 1669 bighas, 18 biswas of land in the village. So, all lands cannot and should not be classified as possessed of same market value. Burden is always on the claimant to prove the market value and the Court should adopt realistic standards and progmatic approach in evaluation of the evidence. No doubt, each individual have different parcels of the land out of that vast land. If that principle is accepted as propounded by the High Court, irrespective of the quality of the land, all will be entitled to the same compensation. That principal is not the correct approach in law. The doctrine of equality in determination and payment of same compensation fro all claimants involved in the same notification is not good principal acceptable for the aforestated reasons when both the lands are proved to be possessed of same advantages, features etc, then only equal compensation is permissible."Page 6 of 8
C/FA/1231/1992 JUDGMENT
9. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Harpat Singh and Ors. reported in (2009) 14 SCC 375 has also held inter alia that when the nature of land sought to be acquired is different, the amount of compensation would be different keeping in view several factors, namely, the date of notification, the class of land sought to be acquired whether fully irrigated, number of annual crops or as to whether it was a land where no cultivation or vegetation is done. In this regard, beneficial reference is also required to be made of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Jai Prakash and Ors. Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1997 SC 2237.
10. So far as the facts of present case are concerned, as stated hereinabove the respondentsclaimants had not produced any cogent evidence to show prevailing market value in respect of the lands in question and had sought to rely upon the saledeed at Exh.24, which was in respect of nonagricultural land. The saledeed at Exh.25 in respect of the plot sold by GIDC also could not be said to be a comparable instance, the same being situated in the adjoining village. Under the circumstances, the Reference Court considering the potentiality of the lands has awarded higher compensation making guesswork. In absence of any other material or evidence on record, it is difficult to disturb the award made by the Reference Page 7 of 8 C/FA/1231/1992 JUDGMENT Court. The amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court being just and reasonable, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the said award.
11. In that view of the matter, all the appeals and crossobjections being devoid of merits are dismissed. The common award dated 19.06.1990 passed by the 3rd Extra Assistant Judge, Rajkot District, at Gondal in LAQ Nos.120 to 124 of 1983 is confirmed.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J) TUVAR Page 8 of 8