AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.N. Bhatt, J.—This is a group of 25 Appeals u/s 54 ofthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short ""the Act"").The appellant in all these
appeals is the State ofGujarat and common questions are involved, arising out ofcommon judgment. Upon the joint request, the entiregroup is
taken up simultaneously for determination andadjudication and the entire group is being disposed of bythis common judgment.
The acquisition proceedings, for the agriculturallands, situated in the sim of village Pujarani Muvadi,Taluka Malpur, District Sabarkantha for the
purpose ofVatrak Jalgar Yojana, were initiated by issuingNotification u/s 4(1) of the Act on 26thJune,1973.
The Special Land Acquisition Officer, afterfollowing requisite procedure under the Act, recorded anaward in Award Case No.52 of 1973 u/s
11 of the Act, on 31st December, 1974, whereby the market price ofthe land acquired, came to be fixed at the rate ofRs.3300/-- per acre for
irrigated land and Rs.2200/- peracre for non-irrigated land.
Being aggrieved by the said amount offered andthe award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer,as stated hereinabove, the
respondents, who are theoriginal claimants-owners of the land, made applicationsunder Section 18 for reference to the District Courtthrough the
Collector against the award in Award CaseNo.52 of 1973. The Land Reference Case Nos.3876 to 3914of 1989 were consolidated and
evidence was recorded inthe Main Land Reference No.3879 of 1989. The learnedAssistant Judge, Sabarkantha District, at Himmatnagar byhis
award dated 9th February, 1999, allowed thereferences partially. The appellant has challenged thecommon award of the Reference Court in the
said group ofreferences, by filing this group of 25 appeals. TheReference Court considered the facts and circumstances,documentary evidence as
well as oral evidence, andawarded the additional amount of compensation at the rateof Rs.145/-- per Are for nonirrigated land and
Rs.177.50paisa per Are for irrigated land. In other words, theclaimants came to be granted an amount of Rs.2 persq.mtr. by way of market price
in all, over-and-above,the statutory benefits under the Act.
During the course of submissions made before us,the entire documentary evidence as well as oral evidencewere supplied and we were taken
through them for thepurpose of consideration of the merits and challengeagainst the awards in this group. After havingconsidered the evidence on
record, and the rivalsubmissions advanced before us, and the relevantproposition of law, we are of the clear opinion that thefixing of the market
price at the rate of Rs.2/- persq.mtr. in respect of the land under references couldnot be said to be unjust, unreasonable or excessive.
TheReference Court has taken into consideration the variousfacts and circumstances relevant for the consideration offixation of market price u/s 23
of the Act.
The observations made by the Reference Court, inrelation to the appreciation of the evidence in paras(11) and (12), have been highlighted by
both the sidesand, therefore, it would not be necessary to repeat andreiterate the same since we agree with theseobservations. The respondents -
original claimants haveplaced reliance on the evidence of one witness Gema Nathaexamined at Ex.102. He had purchased the agriculturalland
bearing Revenue Survey No.68 of Village Fansareladmeasuring 2 Acre and 20 Gunthas for consideration ofRs.62,500/-. The sale-deed
evidencing the transaction isproduced by him at Ex.103. The documentary evidenceproduced at Exh.103 by the claimants in the evidence ofGema
Natha clearly goes to show that the rate ofagricultural land of village Fansarel comes to Rs.625/--per Are. The distance between the village
PujaraniMuvadi and Fansarel is about 4 K.M. It is also veryclearly testified by him that the quality and fertilityof the agricultural lands of both the
villages are almostsimilar.
No doubt it will be interesting to mention thatthe date of Notification in the present case underSection 4(1) of the Act is important, which is
26/6/1973whereas the date of sale in relation to the sale-deed atEx.103 is 29/11/1994. Thus there is a gap of 21 (twentyone) years between the
acquisition of the land and thetransaction of sale evidenced by Exh.103. It is in thiscontext that the Reference Court has not seriouslyconsidered it
for the purpose of fixing the market priceunder the land acquisition. The answer given by theReference Court is quite justified and we are in
fullagreement. Therefore, the submission made by learned AGPis required to be rejected.
It is also very clear from the evidence of theclaimant witness Pujabhai, examined at Exh.99 that theacquired agricultural lands were yielding good
crops. It is borne out from the evidential testimony at Exh.99 thatthe Ground-nut crop is of 35 Maunds per Vigha and Tuveris about 35 Maunds
per Vigha and Adad is about 40 Maundsper Vigha. It is also very clearly testified by him thatthey were growing agricultural crops of groundnut,
55Maunds of wheat per Vigha and 50 Maunds of cotton perVigha. No doubt, the witness has made slightexaggeration which has excluded the
consideration by theReference Court. It is clearly mentioned in the impugnedjudgment that the Reference Court has taken veryreasonable
approach in fixing the market price byemploying the capitalization method of the agriculturalland acquired by the appellant. It is also manifestedthat
the same is in consonance with the principle laiddown by this Court in State of Guajrat v/s. PatelNarvatlal Khodidas, reported in 1995 (1) GLH
Itmust be remembered that for the determination of themarket price contemplated u/s 23 of the Act,the various methods are available and
agricultural yieldof the lands under reference is one of the methods whichis required to be capitalized in terms of celebratedprinciple of law which is
processed by the ReferenceCourt. Apart from that, the other material aspects alsoare kept in mind and finally the Reference Court hasfixed the
market price at Rs.2/-- per sq.mtr. and otherstatutory benefits. No doubt, in respect of thestatutory benefits, there is a dispute about thepercentage
and the provisions in this regard would bedealt with by us hereinafter.
Our attention was invited to the unsuccessfulattempt made by the appellant - the State of Gujarat, byfiling the group of First Appeal Nos.7746
to 7814 of 1999against the award of the same Reference Court in LandAcquisition Case Nos.3741 to 3817 of 1989. In that groupalso, the
acquisition was for public purpose and in thepresent group, the public purpose is common, like that ofVatrak Jalgar Yojana. In that group of
matters, thelands acquired were forming part of the same Taluka andsame District in which the acquisition was pursuant tothe Notification u/s 4(1)
dated 16th January,1975 whereas in this group of matters, the acquisition ofthe land is in pursuance of the Notification underSection 4(1) of the
Act dated 26th June, 1973 and in thatgroup of the matters, the Reference Court had held thatthe claimants-owners of the lands were entitled to
thecompensation at the rate of Rs.4/-- per sq.mtr. inrelation to the agricultural lands acquired, againstwhich the State of Gujarat preferred a group
of FirstAppeals, as aforesaid, which came to be summarilydismissed by this Court on 27th September, 2000. Thecopy of the same was placed
before us for ourconsideration, which we have taken on record. Thedifference between the date of Notification in both thegroups is less than 20
months. However, the fixation ofmarket price in the present group is Rs.2/-- per sq.mtr.whereas in that group, market price is Rs.4/= per
sq.mtr.and the appeals against that order came to be dismissedand it has become final. Therefore, there is no reasonfor us to reduce the amount of
Rs.2/-- per sq.mtr. inrelation to the land acquired under the present group.Over and above, in view of the reasons assigned by theReference Court
and the confirmation of the same by thisCourt in other group, which is referred to above, thereis no reason for us to reduce the amount.
It would be also interesting to mention that theState of Gujarat filed the aforesaid group which came tobe summarily dismissed on 27/9/2000
which was subsequentto the successful appeals at the instance of the ownersof the lands in First Appeals Nos.3920 to 3988 of 1999.The entire
group came to be disposed of by a DivisionBench of this Court on 15/09/1999. The appeals of theclaimants were partly allowed and this Court
has heldthat the market value of the agricultural land of villageKidiad on the relevant date, i.e. publication of theNotification u/s 4(1), is Rs.4/-- per
sq.mtr.The claimants in that group were also found to beentitled to statutory benefits. The copy of the judgmentof that group is also placed on
record.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,the contention that fixing of the market price by way ofcompensation u/s 23 of the Act by the
ReferenceCourt is erroneous, unreasonable, and unsupportable isitself unsustainable and therefore, it is rejected. Thesecond contention advanced
is with regard to thestatutory benefits granted by the Reference Court. Thatthe claimants are ordered to be paid solatium and theappellant is
directed to pay interest at the rate of 9%for the first year from the date of taking over thepossession and, thereafter, at the rate of 15% per
annumon the additional amount of compensation awarded, withproportionate costs. The contention in this behalfraised on behalf of the appellant
by the learned AGPappears to be justified. So far as the rate of interestis concerned, for the first year from the date of takingover the possession,
the claimants would be entitled toat the rate of 6% per annum instead of 9% per annum, andinstead of the amount of interest at the rate of 15%
perannum from the second year till the date of taking overthe possession, as awarded by the Reference Court, theclaimants would be entitled to
interest at the rate of 9%per annum till the date of taking over the possession inview of the following three decisions of the Hon''ble ApexCourt and
the provisions of Sections 23(2), 28 andSection 30 of the Land Acquisition Act, as amended in1984:
(1) Mir Fazeelath Hussain and others Vs. Special Deputy Collector Land Acquisition, Hyderabad [OVERRULED], .
(2) Priya Vart and Another v/s. Union of India,reported in (1995) 5 Supreme Court Cases 437.
(3) Umed Industries and Land Development Co. andOthers v/s. State of Rajasthan and Others,reported in (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 563.
Insofar as the direction of payment of 30%solatium, on the market value of the land under theacquisition, as contained in the impugned
commonjudgment, is concerned, the claimants would be entitledto the rate prevalent before the amendment made in the Act, 1984 and in view of
the Constitutional Benchdecision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in Unionof India and another v/s. Raghubir Singh (dead) by LRs.etc.,
AIR 1989 (2) S.C. 1933 and which is followed in His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru Vs. State of Kerala, decided by the bench of
13 Hon''bleJudges, the claimants are entitled to statutory benefitsand they are entitled to claim solatium at the rate of30% and interest on the
compensation from the date oftaking over the possession for one year or from the dateof Notification u/s 4(1) of the Act, whicheveris earlier, and
interest at the rate of 9% for the firstyear and, thereafter, at the rate of 15% till the date ofpayment. Therefore, the contention that the claimantsare
not entitled to statutory benefits is meritless.
In the result, this group of First Appeals shallstand disposed of likewise. The group of CivilApplications for stay order shall also stand disposed
ofas they would not assume any survival value.