State of Gujarat and Another vs Thakor Madarji Amthaji and Another

Jayant Patel, J.—Admit. Mr. Prajapati, learned Counsel states that he has received instructions to appear for all the original claimants as well as legal heirs and he has undertaken to file vakalatnama within two weeks. He further states that he had received instructions to appear on behalf of the original claimants as well as the legal heirs and he had appeared in the civil applications for condo nation of delay for the original claimants as well as legal heirs when in the Civil Application No. 7893/2011 and allied matters for condo nation of delay, decided on 18.4.2011.

The present appeals arise against the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 19.2.2008 in Land Reference Case No. 1080 of 2003 to 1117 of 2003, whereby the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation of Rs. 430/- per sq. mtrs., plus statutory benefits u/s 23(1-A), Section 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act.

The short facts of the case are that the lands at Village Brahmanwada of Unjha Taluka were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for the purpose of Sabarmati Canal Project. The Notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 20.12.2001 and Notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 18.4.2002. The award was published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 27.5.2003 and he had awarded compensation of Rs. 18/- per sq. mtrs. The land owners, as were not satisfied with the compensation, had raised the dispute u/s 18 of the Act and initially they demanded the amount of Rs. 200/- per sq. mtrs., and thereafter the same was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per sq. mtrs. Such dispute was referred to the Reference Court for adjudication and the Reference Court ultimately as per the above referred judgment has passed the award, whereby as stated above, the compensation has been awarded. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court.

We have heard Ms,. Thakkar, learned AGP for the Appellant and Mr. Prajapati, learned Counsel for the Respondent claimants, including the legal heirs of the claimants.

The learned Counsel appearing for both the sides are on agreement on the point that the issues, which arise for consideration in the present appeals, are covered by the decision of this Court dated 1.4.2011 in First Appeal No. 2794 of 2009 and allied matters and more particularly First Appeal No. 1732 of 2010 to First No. 1753 of 2010, which were forming part of the said group.

We may record that in the group of First Appeal No. 2794 of 2009 to 2882 of 2009 with First Appeal No. 1732 of 2010 to First Appeal No. 1753 of 2010, vide decision dated 1.4.2011, it was observed at paragraphs 3 to 10 thus:

Short facts of the case appear to be that in the group of First Appeals No. 2794 of 2009 to 2822 of 2009, lands were acquired of village Brahmanwada for the Project of Sabarmati Canal Scheme under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act''). Notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 27.08.2002 and notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 03.01.2002. The awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 18.05.2004 and the compensation was awarded at Rs. 18/- per square metre. Since the land owners were not satisfied with the compensation, they raised the dispute u/s 18 of the Act, which ultimately came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication. The another aspect which deserves to be recorded is that the claimants had filed the applications initially on the basis of the market value at Rs. 200/- and thereafter, it was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per square metre. The Reference Court at the conclusion of the reference, awarded additional compensation of Rs. 450/- per square metre. Under the circumstances, the present appeals before this Court.

In the group of First Appeals No. 1732/10 and allied matters, the land in question located at very village Brahmanwada was acquired under the Act, for the same scheme of Sabarmati Canal. The notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 20.12.2001 and the notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 18.04.2002. The Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award on 27.05.2003 and he had awarded compensation of Rs. 18/- per square metre. As the claimants were not satisfied with the compensation, they raised the dispute u/s 18 of the Act which ultimately came to be referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. Initially, the claimants had made the application assessing the market value at Rs. 200/- per square metre and subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs. 500/- per square metre. The Reference Court after adjudication passed the judgment and award, whereby additional compensation at Rs. 437/- per square metre has been awarded. Under the circumstances, the present appeals before this Court.

We have heard the learned AGP Ms. Thakkar for the Appellants in all the matters and Mr. Prajapati appearing in the group of First Appeals No. 2794/09 and allied matters and Mr. Tejas Satta and Mr. Patel in the group of First Appeals No. 1732/10 and allied matters for the original claimants.

The pertinent aspect in the present matter is that the Reference Court in both the impugned judgment and award has mainly relied upon another decision of the Reference Court in the Land Reference Case Nos. 214/05 to 239/05 for the acquisition of the land at village Maktapur, whereby the additional compensation was awarded at Rs. 451.50 per square metre plus statutory benefit. The learned Counsel appearing for both the sides have made available to the Court copy of the said decision and as per the said judgment of the Reference Court in the said matter, it has relied upon the another decision of the Reference Court in LAR No. 247/97 for acquisition of the land at Unjha, whereby the additional compensation was awarded at Rs. 231/- per square metre in respect of the acquisition made vide notification u/s 4 of the Act on 15.03.1992. Thereafter, since there was time gap of about 10 years and more, the appreciation is considered at the rate of 10% p.a. and compensation was fixed accordingly. The another aspect is that in the impugned Judgment, the Reference Court has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Reference Court in earlier Land Reference Case Nos. 248/97 to 350/97 in respect of the acquisition of the land at Unjha wherein the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 15.03.1992 and the notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 21.12.1992 and the Reference Court ultimately had awarded the compensation at Rs. 231/- per square metre vide judgment and award dated 13.03.2003. It may be recorded that against the aforesaid decision of the Reference Court, the matters were carried before this Court in First Appeals No. 2147/04 to 2249/04 and this Court (Coram: J.M. Panchal and Smt. Abhilasha Kumari, J.J.) vide judgment dated 02.07.2007, did not interfere with the judgment and award of the Reference Court and dismissed of the appeals. Under these circumstances, it appears that the Reference Court in the impugned judgment after considering the time gap of the notification u/s 4 of the Act in respect of the land acquired at Unjha has applied appreciation of 10% p.a. and has arrived at the market value at Rs. 468/- per square metre in First Appeal No. 2794/09 and allied matters and Rs. 455/- per square metre in First Appeal No. 1732/09 and allied matters and thereafter, as the compensation was already paid at Rs. 18/- per square metre, the additional compensation has been awarded at Rs. 450/- per square metre and Rs. 437/- per square metre plus the statutory benefit.

In both the matters, the Reference Court has lost sight of the important aspect that Unjha is a municipal area whereas Brahmanwada is a gram panchayat area. In a case where the valuation is made of the land which is falling in the municipal area, it cannot be compared at para with the land situated at village area even if the boundary of municipal area and the boundary of the said village area may be touching to one another. The reason is that there would be basic difference in the infrastructural facilities and the amenities in the municipal area in comparison to the gram panchayat area. For municipal area, there will be facilities of water, light, transportation, road, school, etc., which may not be available in the gram panchayat area. Further, even if it is considered that since the area is adjacent to each other, there was more development in gram panchayat area, which is adjacent to the municipal area, it appears to us that if it is to be examined for the purpose of tracing the appropriate valuation, such valuation will be minimum 30% less in comparison to the value of the land in the municipal area. It appears that the Reference Court has totally lost sight of the said aspect and has considered the valuation of the land at par with Unjha which is a municipal area. The learned Counsel for the original claimants is also not in a position to show any evidence to the contrary save and except that the village of Brahmanwada is touching to Unjha city. In our view, would not make much difference as observed earlier and the difference of valuation by 30% at least would continue even after the boundary of the village attached to the municipal area since the basic difference of various facilities and infrastructure and development between the municipal area and the gram panchayat area would continue.

In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions in the group of First Appeal No. 2794/09, as the valuation of the land is assessed by the Reference Court at Rs. 468/-, it will have to be reduced by 30% and such amount would come to Rs. 140.40 and if deducted from Rs. 468/-, it would come to Rs. 327.60 out of which, the amount at the rate Rs. 18/- per square metre has already been awarded as compensation. Therefore, the net amount would come to Rs. 309.60 per square metre being the additional amount of compensation.

Whereas, in the group of First Appeal No. 1732/10, as the valuation is fixed at Rs. 455/- per square metre, amount of 30% required to be reduced would come to Rs. 136.50 and the net amount would come to Rs. 318.50 out of which, as the amount of Rs. 18/- per square metre has already been awarded as compensation, the additional amount of compensation would come to Rs. 300.50. The other benefits which are awarded by the Reference Court are in the nature of statutory benefits and therefore, they are not required to be interfered with save and except to the extent that on account of the reduction of the principal amount of compensation, such amount would proportionately get reduced.

In view of the above observations and discussions, the judgment and the award passed by the Reference Court so far as they relate to exceeding Rs. 309.60 in the group of First Appeal No. 2794/19 and allied matters and exceeding Rs. 300.50 in the group of First Appeal No. 1732/09 and allied matters are quashed and set aside. The other benefits awarded by the Reference Court Court of solatium, increase in the price and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are not interfered with and even the direction issued for no deduction of the compensation in respect of the new tenure land is also not interfered with.

Ultimately the appeals were partly allowed. The same view deserves to be taken in the present matters inasmuch as the location of the land, the date of the Notification u/s 4 and Notification u/s 6 and the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition officer are the same.

No further discussion would be required since the issues are already covered by the above referred decision.

Hence, in view of the aforesaid decision, the valuation of the land in question is fixed at Rs. 318.50 and out of which, as the amount of Rs. 18/- per sq. mtrs., has already been awarded as compensation, the additional amount of compensation would come to Rs. 300.50. The other benefits, awarded by the Reference Court are in the nature of statutory benefits and, therefore, they are not required to be interfered with save and except to the extent that on account of the reduction of the principal amount of compensation, such amount would proportionately get reduced.

In view of the above observations and discussions, the impugned judgment and the award passed by the Reference Court so far as they relate to awarding additional compensation exceeding Rs. 300.50 is quashed and set aside. The other benefits awarded by the Reference Court of solarium, increase in the price and interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act are not interfered with and even the direction issued for no deduction of the compensation in respect of the new tenure land is also not interfered with.

All the appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.