Deputy Collector and Laq Officer and Another vs Chunilal Maganbhai and Another

J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—By means of filing this appeal, the Appellants, who were original opponents in Land Reference Case No. 215/1999, tried and decided by the Ld. Civil Judge [S.D.], Panchmahals at Godhra [for short ''the Reference Court''], have challenged the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment and award rendered on 01/05/2005. The Respondents are original claimants in the aforesaid land reference case.

Certain agricultural lands of the Respondents situated in the outskirts of village Tadiya, Taluka Halol, District Panchmahals came to be acquired for the public purpose of "Kadana Project". The notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act [for short ''the Act''] was published on 7/5/1984 and the notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 6/2/1985. The Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry to determine just and fair amount of compensation and delivered his award u/s 11 of the Act on 27/2/1986 and offered the compensation @ Rs. 00-70 ps., per sq.mtr., to the claimants. The claimants felt that the amount offered by way of compensation to them was grossly inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, they applied for reference and their reference was numbered and registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 215 of 1999.

Before the Reference Court, both the parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence. The Reference Court, took into consideration one previous award passed in L.A.R. Case No. 25/1988 wherein the land of the same village i.e. Tadiya was acquired and in said case, the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 7/6/1984 and in the said case, the Reference Court had awarded additional compensation @ Rs. 7/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court, therefore, partly allowed the reference case and awarded additional compensation @ Rs. 7/- per sq.mtr. The Reference Court also awarded statutory increases, namely 12% p.a interest as contemplated u/s 23(1-A) of the Act and the solatium as contemplated u/s 23(2) of the Act. The Reference Court granted running interest as provided u/s 28 of the Act. The Appellants - Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive Engineer, who were original opponents in the said reference case felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation was on higher side and, therefore, preferred this appeal.

Ms. Shachi Mathur, Ld. AGP for the Appellants - original opponents submitted that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court is contrary to law and facts on record. It is submitted that the reference was presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation and was time barred. It is also submitted that the Reference Court erred in relying upon the previous award exh. 13 and mechanically awarded the compensation as it was awarded in the previous award. The Reference Court did not appreciate in true perspective the evidence adduced by the claimants and the opponents as to whether the land acquired in the previous award was identically similar to the lands of the claimants or not. That such mechanical approach on the part of the Reference Court resulted into the exorbitant and inflated award. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had offered the compensation after taking into consideration all the relevant material and the factors. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeal may be allowed.

Per contra, Mr. VN Raval, Ld. Advocate for the Respondents - claimants fully supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court. It is submitted that the Reference Court took into consideration the previous award which was in connection with earlier acquisition of the land of the same village, namely Tadiya. That the Reference Court also considered the oral evidence of claimant recorded at exh. 14 regarding the potentiality and fertility of the lands under acquisition. It is submitted that plea of limitation was not raised by the Appellants - opponents before the Reference Court nor issue to that effect was framed. Hence, it is submitted that the appeal may be dismissed.

Considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court, it transpires that the Reference Court relied upon earlier award, copy whereof was produced at exh. 13 and considered said previous award as comparable award. The previous award exh. 13 was passed in Reference Case No. 25/1988, which was passed on 31/3/1993. In the said case, the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 7/6/1984; whereas in the instant case, the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 7/5/1984. Thus, the time gap is very negligible i.e. one month. Over and above this, the previous award was passed pertaining to the acquisition of land of the same village Tadiya. While appreciating the comparable award exh. 13 and the similarity of lands of the claimants and the land acquired in the earlier award, the Reference Court took into consideration the oral evidence adduced by the claimant. The Reference Court in the above view of the matter, ultimately came to the conclusion that in the instant case the claimants were entitled to recover compensation at the same rate to which the claimants of L.A.R. Case No. 25/1988 received. Ultimately, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to get additional compensation @ Rs. 7/- per sq.mtr. It is true that in the judgment and award, at one place Reference Court observed that if the land was acquired @ Rs. 8-20 ps., per sq.mtr., that could have been more reasonable, proper and just. However, that does not mean that the Reference Court fixed the market rate of the acquired land at Rs. 8-20 ps., per sq.mtr.

In the memo of appeal as well as during arguments on behalf of the Appellants, a contention is raised about the limitation. The impugned judgment and award, if minutely read, nothing transpires that any such contention regarding the limitation was raised by the Appellants - opponents before the Reference Court. Therefore, it appears that no issue came to be framed by the Reference Court pertaining to the limitation. If at all the Appellants - opponents had raised such dispute before the Reference Court, the Reference Court would have framed issue regarding limitation or else the Appellants - opponents would have requested the Reference Court to frame the issue regarding the limitation. Perusing the impugned judgment and award, nothing whatsoever was done by the opponents.

In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court did not err in relying upon the comparable award exh. 13 rendered by the Reference Court earlier in point of time in L.A.R. Case No. 25/1988. Nothing is either contended in the memo of appeal nor it is contended on behalf of the Appellants at the time of the arguments that the previous award exh. 13 passed on 31/5/1993 in L.A.R. Case No. 25/1988 has not attained finality. Under such circumstances, the previous award relied upon by the Reference Court cannot be said to be a mistake or error.

In the above view of the matter, this Court has not found any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court and the appeal deserve dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.