The present First Appeal has been filed by the appellants- State under sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being aggrieved with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court (learned Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Bharuch) in LAR Case No. 338/2005 dated 6.7.2009 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeal. 2. Heard learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. KM Sheth for the respondent-original claimant.
3. Learned AGP Mr. Raval has submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the material and evidence on record and has also failed to consider the quality/nature of the land as well as the potential development. It is contended that the order passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is without any reason and has taken into consideration the market price. It is therefore contended that the relevant criteria/principles for valuation of the land has not been considered. He has submitted that five years' sale instances is required to be considered and the market value of the land acquired based on other comparable sale instances of the near vicinity has to be considered. Therefore, it is contended that the court below has erred in relying only on the previous award and determining the market price based on the previous award without considering other relevant aspects and also whether the land is comparable or not.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth, however, submitted that the court below has considered all the relevant aspects and while deciding the market value, the Reference Court has considered the value of the land in village Muler and other village like Kessan. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth submitted that in any case the award of the Reference Court has been assailed by way of First Appeal No. 2240 of 2011 before this court and this court (Coram: K.S.Jhaveri, J.) had not entertain the appeal and confirmed the order of the Reference Court. Similarly, he has submitted that thereafter in First Appeal No. 44 of 2012 this court has also, while considering the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case Nos. 489 to 500 of 2005, in respect of the land acquired of the same village Ochhan for the same public purpose of minor canal under the Narmada Project, has declined to interfere and entertain the appeal filed by the State. He therefore submitted that the present appeal may not be entertained.
5. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present first appeal can be entertained or not.
6. As discussed earlier, other group of matters with regard to acquisition of land of the same village for the same purpose have been dealt with in First Appeal No. 2440/2011 by this court (Coram: K.S. Jhaveri, J.) vide judgment and order dated 25.8.2011. Thereafter, in First Appeal No. 44/2012, this court has also, while considering Land Reference Case Nos. 489 to 500 of 2005, declined to interfere. As could be seen from the discussion in the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court has also considered the relevant aspects like nature of land situation of the land, yield and also the previous award in respect of the land acquired of the same village for the same purpose. It has also considered the land acquired of other village in the near vicinity with reference to the yield as well as the quality of the land.
7. Therefore, without any further elaboration, since there are more than one example or precedents cited with regard to the judgment of the Reference Court having been confirmed in appeal by this Court, the present appeal also deserves to be dismissed. This court is in broad agreement with the findings given and the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court and it does not call for any interference.
8. In the facts and circumstances, considering the material and evidence and also the submissions as well as the judgment and award of the Reference Court based on various aspects including the previous award in other land reference cases as discussed earlier, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court.
9. The present first appeal therefore deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) (hn)