State of Gujarat and Another vs Jayeshbhai Bhailalbhai Patel

H.K. Rathod, J.—Learned AGP Mr. Raval appearing on behalf of appellant - State of Gujarat, learned Advocate Mr. Trilok J. Patel, appearing for respondent - claimant. After considering their submissions, these appeals are admitted. Learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel waives service of notice on behalf of respondent. With consent of both learned Advocates, matter is taken up for final hearing today.

The appellant has challenged award passed by Reference Court, Vadodara in Land Reference Case No. 2247 of 1999 to No. 2249 of 1999. Main Land Reference Case No. 2249 of 1999 was decided on 31st March 2008. The Reference Court has awarded Rs. 17.50ps per sq. mtr. as an additional compensation, over and above, compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer with consequential benefits.

The land of original claimants situated at village: Mundhela, Tal.: Savli, Dist.: Vadodara was acquired for public purpose of construction of canal under Narmada Canal Project. Section 4 Notification is dated 20th April 1995 and Section 6 Notification is dated 19th September 1996. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award on 12th December 1997 in Land Acquisition Case No. 188 of 1994 and awarded Rs. 45,000/- per hector for irrigated land and Rs. 30,000/- per hector for non-irrigated land. The claimants have made reference u/s 18 to Reference Court were Reference Court has awarded additional compensation of Rs. 17.50 per sq. mtr.

Learned AGP raised number of contentions against award passed by Reference Court. He submitted that Land Acquisition Officer has passed award after considering sale transactions of last five years, which has not been taken into account by Reference Court. The claimants have accepted the amount of compensation without putting their objections. Therefore, they are not entitled to any more amount of compensation. The Reference Court has increased compensation without assigning any reasons. He submitted that claimants have not produced any evidence to prove or to show that they are entitled to more compensation and also not proved that lands are more valued than compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer. The claimants have not produced any single document with respect to sale. He submitted that best evidence prove is what a willing purchaser would pay for the land under acquisition would be the evidence of sales of comparable properties, proximate in time to the date of acquisition, similarly situate, and possessing same or similar advantages and subject to same or similar disadvantages. Market value is the price of the property may fetch in open market if sold by a willing seller unaffected by the special needs of a particular purchase. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded the amount after considering five years sale transactions. The Reference Court has committed gross error in relying upon exh.16. The claimants have not produced anything to show that their lands are similar to the land referred in exh. 16. The Reference Court has committed error in granting compensation of fragment @1/6th of the market value of fragment or small piece of acquired lands. The claimants have not produced anything to show that because of fragment it is difficult to do agricultural work and income is decreased and expenses are increased. In short, his submission is that Reference Court having limited jurisdiction must have to record reason why award passed by Land Acquisition Officer is not accepted by Reference Court. He submitted that Reference Court has not given any cogent reason while deferring with award of Land Acquisition Officer.

Learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel appearing on behalf of respondent - claimants submitted that in respect to same village: Mundhela, this Court has confirmed award passed by Reference Court in First Appeal No. 2395 of 2008 to No. 2398 of 2008, decided on 23rd January 2009. He also submitted that in other order, this Court has confirmed award passed by Reference Court in respect to same village: Mundhela in First Appeal No. 2033 of 2008 with First Appeal No. 2034 of 2008 to First Appeal No. 2035 of 2008, decided on 22nd January 2009, wherein, this Court has confirmed Rs. 17.50ps. being additional amount of compensation awarded in favour of respondent - claimants. Therefore, he submitted that in this case also, Reference Court has rightly examined matter and also considered fertility, potentiality and utility of land in question and accepted increase of amount of compensation in favour of claimants. While relying upon exh. 16, for that, according to him, no error is committed by Reference Court, which requires interference of this Court. He also relied upon one decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 2200 of 2008 to First Appeal No. 2205 of 2008 dated 4th July 2008 (Coram: Bhagwati Prasad, J.), where, in respect to same village: Mundhela, this Court has confirmed award passed by Reference Court and also confirmed additional amount of compensation of Rs. 17.50ps. per sq. mtr. He also submitted that even, this Court has confirmed award for severance @ 1/6th of the market price. Therefore, according to learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel, Reference Court has not committed any error, which requires interference of this Court.

I have considered submissions made by both learned Advocates. I have also perused award passed by Reference Court. The appellant has filed objections against reference and raised contentions relying upon award passed by Land Acquisition Officer, who has taken into consideration registered Sale Deeds of last five years. According to appellant surrounding lands are not developed and there is no any kind of facility of irrigation, road and railway station. Therefore, according to them, reference is required to be dismissed. Thereafter, issues have been framed by Reference Court. On behalf of respondent - claimants one Jayeshbhai Bhailalbhai Patel was examined at exh. 13. The claimants have produced revenue records of Village Form No. 7/12 of the acquired lands for the year 1995 to 1999 at exh. 14, Annual Report showing the rates of crops for the year 1997 of the APMC, Dabhoi at exh. 15. Thereafter, certified copy of judgment passed by Reference Court in LAR Nos. 1537 of 1999 for acquisition of lands of village: Mundhela by the same opponents for construction of Narmada Canal at exh. 16. The appellant has examined one Shri AB Pandor at exh. 18. Thereafter, written arguments were placed on record at exh. 21 and learned Advocate Mrs. Sangeeta Oza also placed on record written arguments at exh. 22. Thereafter, Reference Court examined matter on merits and has considered exh. 16 previous award passed by Reference Court, Vadodara in Land Reference Case No. 1537 of 1999. The relevant discussion made by Reference Court is quoted as under:

...The applicant has relied on the judgment passed by the 9th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Vadodara in L.R. Case No. 1537/99 wherein, the land was acquired of the same village Mundhela and for the same purpose of Narmada Canal Project, and the fertility and potentiality were the same of the acquired land in that case and in the present case. Looking to the judgment produced by the applicants vide exh. 16 the rate of irrigated land was fixed at Rs. 17.50 (i.e. Rs. 22.00-4.50=17.50 Ps.) per Sq. Mtr. and looking to the deposition of Mr. A.B. Pandor, in his cross-examination, he has admitted that, the payment has already been made to the claimants as per the judgment exh. 16 to applicants. So, I have no hesitation to consider the basis of fixing the price rate of the present land as per his judgment. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the applicants and the evidence led by the parties. The Ld. Advocate for the claimants has submitted in his written argument that, he has no objection if the award is passed by fixing the market price of the acquired lands as of Rs. 2,20,000.00 per hector and the claimants are ready to accept the said amount, instead of demand of Rs. 30,000/- per Sq. Mtr. Now, looking to the land acquired in the cited and relied judgment of this Court and land acquired of the present reference cases are of the same village for the same purpose and are also of the similar advantage and same and comparable lands, which is clear from the record it is well settled law as per the judgment of our own Hon''ble High Court reported in Gupta Investment Centre Vs. Priyakant Chandravadan Mogal, it was held that reference court relief on previous judgment for arriving at just, adequate and reasonable compensation - One previous judgment is in respect of the lands situated in a village having common gram panchayat and common simada-reference court has not committed any error in relying on the previous judgment pertaining to land of nearby/same village and acquired for the same project. Therefore, the judgment produced at exh. 16 can be looked into for the purpose of fixing the actual market price of the acquired lands of village Mundhela. And hence, the said judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand and hence keeping in mind the aforesaid well settled principle of law, the claimants are entitled to get the same amount for their acquired land.

Now, in the present reference cases, the applicants were awarded a sum of Rs. 4.50 per Sq. Mtr. by Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, which is to be deducted from Rs. 22.00. So, after deduction, the claimants are entitled for additional compensation of their acquired land at the rate of Rs. 17.50 Sq. Mtr. (i.e. Rs. 22.00-Rs.4.50 = Rs. 17.50).

The Reference Court has also considered to determine the amount for fragment, which occurred due to acquisition of their lands. After considering damage suffered by claimants because of acquisition, their land divided, which adversely affected potentiality and fertility of land in question. It also increased agricultural expenses and income of the claimants is decreased. Therefore, considering decision of this Court reported in 22 GLR 590, Reference Court has awarded 1/6th of the market price being compensation for fragment. The relevant discussion in para 9 is quoted as under:

Applicants have also demanded compensation on the ground of fragment, which occurred due to acquisition of their lands. As per the say of the applicants, it is difficult to do agricultural work in two pieces instead of one block and thereby the agricultural expenses are increaded and income is decreased and the potentiality is also affected and prayed to compensated the said loss as per Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, and this fact is very much admitted by the opponent No. 1 in his deposition and the Ld. Advocate for the applicants relied on the judgment reported in Amirbibi and Others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Ahmedabad, wherein the Hon''ble High Court of Gujarat has suggested to give the proper compensation of damages suffered by the applicants. As per judgment reported in 22 GLR 590 the applicants are entitled for compensation of fragment at the rate of 1/6 of the market price and relying upon the said judgment, I see no hesitation in granting 1/6 of the market price for the fragment. Accordingly decided issued No. 1 in affirmative and No. 2 as per final order.

In view of aforesaid discussion made by Reference Court and also considering three decisions of this Court as referred above by learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel, where in respect to same village: Mundhela previous award has been confirmed by this Court, where amount of Rs. 17.50ps. awarded as an additional amount of compensation in favour of the respondent - claimants. Therefore, in light of this background, contentions raised by learned AGP Mr. Raval cannot be accepted. Hence, rejected. The Reference Court has not committed any error in deciding reference by determining additional amount of compensation with fragment compensation @ 1/6th of market price and Reference Court has given detail reasons as to how award is passed by Land Acquisition Officer is found to be inadequate and meager amount. Therefore, Reference Court has rightly examined matter in detail and no error has been committed by Reference Court and for that, no interference is required by this Court. Hence, there is no substance in First Appeals. Accordingly, First Appeals are dismissed.

Learned Advocate Mr. Trilok Patel requested this Court that this being a very old acquisition, let other side may deposit amount of compensation as early as possible. Considering his request, it is directed to appellant to deposit amount of compensation as per award passed by Reference Court as early as possible but not later than 02 (two) months from date of receiving copy of order.