1. The present First Appeals have been filed being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court (Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch) in Land Reference Case Nos. 1231 of 1998 to 1242 of 1998 (main Land Reference Case No. 1234 of 1998), on the grounds stated in the memo of Appeals inter alia that the Reference court has erred in not appreciating the evidence and has awarded compensation relying upon the previous award. It is also contended that the court below has failed to appreciate that the land acquisition officer has passed the award after taking into consideration five years sale instances of the nearby areas for the purpose of deciding the market value, which has not been appreciated. It is also contended that the court below has failed to consider the nature and the similarity of the land while deciding the market value of land on the basis of the previous award.
2. Heard learned AGP Mr. P.P.Banaji for the Appellants as well as learned Advocate Mr. M.M.Saiyed for the Respondent – Original Claimants.
3. Learned AGP Mr. P.P.Banaji for the Appellants has referred to the award and tried to submit that the main emphasis is on the previous award but the other relevant factors have not been considered. He submitted that the nature and the similarity of the land between the two cases, i.e. land in the previous award as well as in the present case has not been discussed. He further submitted that the sale instances have been considered by the land acquisition officer, and therefore, the reliance placed only on the previous award, would not be relevant, and the present First Appeals may be allowed.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. M.M.Saiyed for the Respondent however referred to the judgment and order of the Reference Court and pointedly referred to the observations made therein, including the observations made in paragraphs 9 and 10 and submitted that in Land Reference Case No.1231 of 1998, the claimant who has been examined has stated that village Manch and other village Kahan were adjacent to each other and the fertility and the yield of both the lands are similar. On the basis of this discussion, again a reference is made to Land Reference Case No.444 of 1998 in respect of the land of village Manch acquired, where the compensation has been awarded at Rs.35.80p. Learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed has submitted that this order of the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.444 of 1998 was carried by way of First Appeal before this court and this court has declined to interfere. He produced the judgment and order in First Appeal Nos.1547 of 2008 to 1557 of 2008, which is also referred to in the impugned judgment and order at Exh.49. He therefore submitted that considering the submissions which have been advanced, this court has discussed in the aforesaid First Appeal Nos. 1547 of 2008 to 1557 of 2008 and suspended the order of the Reference Court. He therefore submitted that considering the nature and similarity of the land as well as other relevant factors, the amount of Rs. 35.80p fixed by the Reference Court has not been disturbed and has been found to be reasonable. Therefore, learned Advocate Mr. Saiyed submitted that in the present case also the Reference Court has awarded Rs.35.80p as an additional compensation, which cannot be said to be disturbed and the present Appeals may be dismissed.
5. In view of the rival submissions and having considered the the discussions made in the impugned judgment of the Reference court and also the judgment of this court in First Appeal Nos. 1547 of 2008 to 1557 of 2008 dated 13.2.2009 (Coram: H.K.Rathod,J), there is a detailed discussion with regard to the relevant factors like nature and similarity of the land as well as the situation of the lands that both the lands are similarly situated and adjacent to each other and it has also considered the yield of the land that the crops were grown on the basis of other evidence, which has been produced.
6. Therefore this court is in complete agreement with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court, which does not call for any interference and the present First Appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stand dismissed.
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J) Jayanti*