Spl. LAQ Officer vs Mobatsang Govindsang and Others

Abhilasha Kumari, J.—The instant appeals, which are filed u/s 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (�the Act� for short) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are directed against common judgment and award dated December 10, 2003, rendered by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge and Special Judge (LAR), Ahmedabad (R) at Navrangpura, in Land Acquisition Cases No. 19/2001 and 20/2001, by which the claimants have been awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 27.90 ps. per sq.mt. for their acquired lands, over and above the compensation awarded to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 1.90 ps. per sq.mt. by his award dated June 14, 1999.

The Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojana, Division No. 8, Dholka, made a proposal to the State Government to acquire agricultural lands of village Koth, Taluka: Dholka, District: Ahmedabad for the public purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. On perusal of the said proposal, the State Government, being satisfied that the lands of village Koth were likely to be needed for the said public purpose, issued a notification u/s 4 of the Act, which was published in the Official Gazette on May 11, 1998. The owners of the lands were thereafter served with notices u/s 4 of the Act. Their objections regarding proposed acquisition were considered and the Land Acquisition Officer thereafter forwarded his report u/s 5A(2) of the Act to the State Government. On scrutiny of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Koth, which were specified in the notification published u/s 4(1) of the Act, were needed for the public purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. Therefore, a declaration u/s 6 of the Act was made, which was published in the Official Gazette on October 5, 1998. The interested persons were thereafter served with notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per sq.mt. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated June 14, 1999, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1.90 ps. per sq.mt. Being dissatisfied by the offer of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer, which according to the claimants was totally inadequate, they filed applications u/s 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer their cases to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation. Accordingly, References were made to the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) where they were registered as Land Acquisition Cases Nos.19/2001 and 20/2001.

On behalf of the claimants, witness Shantilal Trikambhai Parekh deposed vide Ex.20. Apart from stating that the lands acquired were very fertile and had adequate irrigation facilities, said witness also deposed that they were earning net agricultural income of Rs. 50,000/- per Vigha per year from the sale of agricultural produces. In support of the claim of the claimants for enhanced compensation, the witness produced copy of Village Form No. 7/12 at Exs.16 and 17, copy of the previous judgment and award of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Case No. 26/1987 pertaining to the lands of this very village at Ex.18 and a copy of judgment of the High Court in First Appeal No. 210 of 1988 whereby the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands acquired from this very village was confirmed, at Ex.19. On behalf of the appellants, no witness was examined nor any documentary evidence was produced.

On appreciation of evidence adduced by the claimants, the Reference Court was of the opinion that the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of this very village furnished good guidance and was relevant for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands acquired in the instant case. It was noticed by the Reference Court that in the earlier case, for acquiring lands from this very village, notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on June 21, 1983 whereas in the instant case, the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on May 11, 1998. Therefore, in view of the time-gap between publication of the said two notifications, the Reference Court held that the claimants were entitled to reasonable rise in price of lands at the rate of 10% per annum. In the ultimate analysis, the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled to additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 27.90 ps. per sq.mt. by the impugned judgment and award, giving rise to the abovenumbered appeals.

This Court has heard Ms. Krina P.Calla, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and has also perused the documents produced for consideration of the Court.

From the record of the case, it is evident that though the witness deposing on behalf of the claimants stated that each claimant was earning a net agricultural income of Rs. 50,000/- per Vigha per year from the sale of agricultural produces, no evidence worth the name was produced to substantiate the same. Further, the record does not indicate that the claimants had claimed enhanced compensation on the basis of yield of crops or comparable sale instances. However, reliance was placed by the claimants upon the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of this very village produced at Ex.18, which indicates that various Survey numbers of village Koth were acquired for the public purpose of construction of GEB Sub Station. In that case, the notification u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on June 21, 1983 and the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 3.50 ps. per sq.mt. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants therein had sought References and the Reference Court had awarded total compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 12/- per sq.mt. Exhibit 19 is the judgment of the High Court rendered in First Appeal No. 201 of 1988 and other cognate matters, which indicates that the award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village Koth, which was produced by the claimants at Ex.18, was confirmed by the High Court.

It is a settled proposition of law that the previous award of the Reference Court, as confirmed by the High Court, can safely be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands subsequently acquired from the same village. The fact that the previous award of the Reference Court, as confirmed by the High Court, has attained finality has not been disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants. Moreover, the appellants have not examined any witness or produced any evidence, oral or documentary. When the previous award of the Reference Court pertaining to the same village, as confirmed by the High Court, is the only reliable piece of evidence for consideration of the Reference Court, it cannot be said that any error has been committed by the Reference Court in placing reliance upon the same.

As has been noticed earlier, in the previous case, the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on June 21, 1983, whereas in the instant case, the notification issued u/s 4(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on May 11, 1998. It is well settled that if there is a gap of time in publication of notifications u/s 4(1) of the Act, the claimants would be entitled to a reasonable rise in price of lands at the rate of 10% p.a. In the present case, there is a time-gap of about 14 years and 10 months between publication of the said two notifications. After calculating the rise in price of lands at the rate of 10% p.a., the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 27.90 ps. per sq.mt. to the claimants for their acquired lands. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court did not commit any error in granting rise in price of the lands at the rate of 10% p.a. to the claimants.

On reappreciation of evidence adduced by the claimants and after perusing the material on record, this Court is of the opinion that correct findings of facts have been recorded by the Reference Court to which settled principles of law have been applied. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants could not point out any error in the impugned award so as to warrant the interference of this Court.

From the above discussion, it is evident that there is no merit in these Appeals filed by the appellants and therefore, they deserve to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, both these Appeals fail and are dismissed. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment as early as possible.