State of Gujarat and Another vs Thakor Rayaji Khodaj

J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—All these appeals arise out of a common judgment and award rendered by the Ld. 9th Addl. District Judge, Mehsana [for short ''the Reference Court''], on 09/5/2008 in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1433/2005 to 1443/2005 [main L.A.R. No. 1437/2005], whereby the Reference Court awarded compensation to the Respondents - claimants @ Rs. 35/- per sq.mtr. The Appellants who were original opponents felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation by the Reference Court is highly excessive and exorbitant and, therefore, they preferred these appeals.

Certain agricultural lands situated in the outskirts of village Matrasan, Taluka Chanasma, District Mehsana proposed to be acquired for the common public purpose of "Sardar Sarovar Canal" in Land Acquisition Case No. 30/1994. The notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act [for short ''the Act''] was published on 19/10/1994 and the notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 13/5/1995. The Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry in Land Acquisition Case No. 30/1994 to determine the fair and reasonable amount of compensation and offered the compensation @ Rs. 2-80 ps. Per sq.mtr., to the claimants. The claimants felt that the amount offered by way of compensation to them was grossly inadequate and, therefore, they applied for references and claimed compensation @ Rs. 50/- per sq.mtr. Their references were numbered and registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1433 to 1443 of 2005.

Before the Reference Court, both the parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence. The Reference Court, relying upon the comparable earlier award passed in connection with acquisition of lands of village Modhera, came to the conclusion that the amount offered by way of compensation to the claimants by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was highly inadequate and meagre and directed that the claimants were entitled to get just and fair amount of compensation @ Rs. 35/- per sq.mtr., in-all for their agricultural lands acquired in this case. The Reference Court also awarded statutory increases as provided u/s 23[1-A] of the Act and solatium as provided u/s 23[2] of the Act. The Reference Court also awarded running interest as provided u/s 28 of the Act. The Reference Court also came to the conclusion that all the reference cases were presented within the period of limitation and the contention raised by the Appellant - opponent before the Reference Court regarding the limitation was negatived.

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 references were presented beyond the prescribed period of limitation and on this ground alone, the Reference Court should have dismissed all the reference cases. It is submitted that the Appellant - State adduced cogent oral and documentary evidence to show that all the reference cases were hit by the period of limitation, yet the Reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the references were presented within the prescribed period of limitation.

4.1. Ms. Mathur, Ld. AGP asserted that the amount offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was just and reasonable and there was no reason whatsoever for the Reference Court to enhance the amount of compensation. It is submitted that the Reference Court relied upon one earlier award passed in connection with acquisition of the lands of some different village, namely Modhera and came to the conclusion that the claimants in the instant case were entitled to get enhanced amount of compensation. It is submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the lands of the claimants were in every respect identical in potentiality and in fertility with the lands of village Modhera. It is, therefore, submitted that the previous award was wrongly considered by the Reference Court as comparable award. In the result, it is submitted that all these appeals may be allowed.

Per contra, Mr. AV Prajapati, Ld. Advocate for the Respondents - claimants, during the course of his submissions, fully supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court. It is submitted that regarding the issue of limitation, in the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court, has elaborately and in detail, appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and also considered the evidence of the Special Land Acquisition Officer Mr. Solanki as well as the relevant documents produced by the opponent - State itself and ultimately came to the conclusion that the opponent failed to prove that the land reference cases were time barred and as a result of his discussion, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that all the references were presented within the prescribed period of limitation.

5.1. Mr. Prajapati, Ld. Advocate submitted that perusing the impugned judgment and award, it is true that the Reference Court relied upon previous award passed in connection with acquisition of lands situated at village Modhera. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, there is ample evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the lands of village Modhera acquired earlier were almost identical in potentiality and fertility like the lands of the claimants acquired in the instant case. But during the course of hearing, Mr. Prajapati supplied copy of common judgment and order rendered by this Court in the case of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. v. Sindhi Jinnatbai Umarmiya on 25/8/2008 in First Appeal Nos. 355 of 2008 to 365 of 2008 and submitted that the subject matter of the said appeals was determination of just and fair amount of compensation pertaining to the acquisition of certain lands of village Matrasan itself. It is submitted that previously for the identical public purpose, certain agricultural lands of village Matrasan came to be acquired and in that matter, notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 13/12/1994 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants in that case @ Rs. 2-80 ps. Per sq.mtr. Those claimants applied for references and their reference cases were numbered and registered as L.A.R. Cases Nos. 3723 to 3732 of 2003 and the Reference Court vide common judgment and award dated 22/9/2005 awarded compensation to those claimants @ Rs. 50/- per sq.mtr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and the State in that case, felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation by the Reference Court was highly excessive and exorbitant and, therefore, they preferred First Appeal Nos. 355 to 365 of 2008 and this Court vide common judgment and order dated 25/8/2008 partly allowed those appeals and awarded additional amount of compensation to the claimants @ Rs. 35-20 ps. Per sq.mtr. Mr. Prajapati, ld. Advocate for the Respondents - claimants, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, the Reference Court has awarded Rs. 35/- per sq.mtr., by way of compensation and, therefore, there is no reason whatsoever for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeals may be dismissed.

Perusing the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court, it transpires that before the Reference Court, dispute was raised by the Appellants original opponents that the Reference cases were time barred. The Reference Court framed issue to that effect at Issue No. 1 and replied the Issue No. 1 in the negative and held that the references were presented within the prescribed period of limitation. Perusing the reasonings assigned by the Reference Court while replying the Issue No. 1 in the negative, it transpires that the Reference Court took into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the original claimants, but even took into consideration the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the opponent - State. The Reference Court mainly relied upon the evidence of the Special Land Acquisition Officer Mr. Solanki examined by the opponent - State at exh. 19. Appreciating the evidence of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the Reference Court observed that in his oral evidence, he categorically admitted that the award u/s 11 of the Act was declared on 25/7/1997. He further admitted that Form Exh. 1 which was duly filled in by his office bears his signatures and in the said Form, in column No. 4, there is the endorsement made by his office that the reference applications are preferred within time. However, he stated that those reference applications were not entered in a register maintained by his office and hence he stated that all reference applications were time barred. However, he also admitted that it is the duty of his office to enter each and every reference application in the relevant office register. He further admitted that if the instant reference applications are not entered in the register maintained by his office, then it is the negligence of his office. In his cross-examination, again he admitted that it is clearly mentioned in column No. 4 in the relevant Form that the reference cases are filed within time limit. Over and above such admission made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his evidence, the Reference Court appreciated and evaluated the oral evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the reference cases were filed within the period of limitation. The Reference Court also appreciated the evidence of other witness Mr. Suthar examined by the opponent - State and came to the conclusion that said witness examined by the opponent had no personal knowledge about the presentation of the applications for reference and on what date the same were presented in the office. When such is the situation, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court did not err in coming to the conclusion that the reference applications were presented within the prescribed period of limitation. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the reasonings assigned by the Reference Court while coming to the conclusion that the references were not time barred. The Reference Court, therefore, correctly replied the Issue No. 1 in the negative.

About the determination of just and fair amount of compensation by the Reference Court, it is true that the Reference Court took into consideration some earlier awards passed in connection with acquisition of the lands of village Modhera. The Reference Court, appreciating the evidence regarding the acquisition of lands of village Modhera, observed that in the said case, the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 27/7/1995; whereas in the instant case, said notification was published on 19/10/1994. In the comparable award of village Modhera, the compensation came to be awarded @ Rs. 41/- per sq.mtr., and further observed that since there was a time gap of about 7 months between the two dates of publication of notification u/s 4 of the Act, 10% amount came to be deducted and ultimately the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the Respondents - claimants were entitled to get reasonable amount of compensation @ Rs. 35/- per sq.mtr.

However, during the course of arguments, Mr. Prajapati, Ld. Advocate for the Respondents - claimants relied upon common oral judgment dated 25/8/2008 rendered by this Court in First Appeal No. 355/2008 to 365/2008, the copy thereof supplied by Mr. Prajapati shall be retained on record. Perusing the copy of said judgment, it transpires that certain agricultural lands of the same village i.e. Matrasan, Taluka Becharaji, District Mehsana came to be acquired for the identical public purpose and notification u/s 4 of the Act in that case was published on 13/12/1994. In that case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation @ Rs. 2-80 ps. Per sq.mtr. The land owners in that matter applied for references, which were numbered and registered as L.A.R. Case Nos. 3723 to 3732 of 2003. The Reference Court in that matter, fixed the price of the land @ Rs. 50/- per sq.mtr. Said award came to be challenged by the State before this Court by preferring First Appeal Nos. 355/2008 to 365/2008. Vide common judgment dated 25/8/2008 this Court partly allowed said appeals and came to the conclusion that deducting Rs. 2-80 ps., which was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it would come to Rs. 35-20 ps., which would be additional amount of compensation for the claimants. The other statutory directions given by the Reference Court in the impugned award were not interfered with. Under such circumstances, when we have the comparable judgment and order which pertains to the acquisition of the lands of village Matrasan itself, there is no harm in relying upon the said judgment and order. Over and above this, there is no much time gap between the dates of notification u/s 4 of the Act as in the instant case the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 19/10/1994; whereas in the said matter, notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 13/12/1994. So the difference is only of two months.

In the above view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court did not commit any error while coming to the conclusion that the just and fair amount of compensation is @ Rs. 35/- per sq.mtr., in-all for the acquisition of agricultural lands of the Respondents - claimants. In the result, all these appeals deserve dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons, all these appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.