In this group of appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 what is challenged is the legality of common award dated 26.4.1989 passed by the Second Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1001 to 1005 of 1987, 1008 and 1009 of 1987, 1011 to 1016 of 1987. By the said award the learned Civil Judge had awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square metre as against the claim varying from Rs. 500 to Rs. 200/- per square metre made by the claimants. 2. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Capital Project, Gandhinagar, had proposed to acquire agricultural lands of village Chandlodiya, taluka, City & Dist. Ahmedabad, for public purpose of construction of Broad gauge railway line from Sabarmati to Gandhinagar. Pursuant to that, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued which was published in the official gazette on 27.6.1974. Thereafter, the State Government made declaration under Section 6 of the Act which was published on 12.5.1977. The interested persons were served with notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.
50 to Rs. 200/- per sq. mtr. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 4/- to Rs. 16/- per sq. mtr.
3. The claimants, seeking higher compensation, submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer their cases to the Court for the purpose of determining the just and fair compensation. Accordingly, Reference was made to the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) where they were registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1001 to 1005 of 1987, 1008 and 1009 of 1987, 1011 to 1016 of 1987.
4. On behalf of the claimants one Manubhai Shankarbhai Patel was examined at Exh. 19. The claimant in his deposition had referred the documents of lands bearing S. Nos. 235, 82, and 59 in supuport of their claim. The claimant had also placed reliance on an award passed in Land Acquisition Reference qua Notification dated 15.8.1974. The claimants had also examined one Mr. Ramanbhai Kacharabhai at Exh. 20. He referred some documents to contend that the market price of the acquired lands were high; however, the learned Civil Judge did not believe the said documents to be reflecting the correct market price and hence, those documents were discarded. The claimants have also examined other witnesses namely Mr. Babubhai Nanjibhai at Exh. 21; Khushalbhai Manjibhai at Exh. 25. Though the said witnesses were cross-examined for the learned counsel for the acquiring authorities, nothing substantial could be elicited.
5. Heard Ms. Trusha Patel, learned AGP for the appellants and Mr. Gopinath Amin, learned counsel for the claimants. Ms. Patel submitted that the claimants had not produced sale bills or purchase bills to show the expenditure incurred by the claimants for fertilizers, seeds, medicines etc. She further contended that even apart from the above bills, no document is produced to prove that the lands in dispute were of equal fertility, potentiality and having equal facilities as compared to the lands which were acquired by the Notification dated 15.8.1974. She had contended that the trial Judge has not discussed the aspect as tohow the figure for additional compensation is derived.
6. Mr. Amin, learned advocate for the respondents, submitted that all those contentions pale in to insignificance when the Division Bench of this Court has already disposed of the First Appeal Nos. 797 to 819 of 1990 and 1823 to 1835 of 1990 wherein the present award also was subject matter. He has pointed out the fact that the First Appeal Nos. 1823 to 1835 of 1990 were the cross appeals filed by the respective claimants against the present group of appeals. While dismissing the said appeals along with the First Appeal Nos. 797 to 819 of 1990; the Division Bench of this Court had held that the award granting compensation at the rate of Rs. 20/- per sq. mtrs. was absolutely just and proper. He, therefore, contended that now it is not open for the appellant to contend contrary to the said order.
6. This Court has also considered the record and proceedings supplied by the learned counsel for the claimants which includes the documentary evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court. Having gone through the entire record, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Civil Judge was absolutely just and proper. After perusing the order dated 11.10.1995, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not possible for this Court to take a different view. This Court finds no substance in the contentions of Ms. Patel. By no stretch of imagination, Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. can be termed as excessive or exorbitant, when the State has compulsorily acquired the said lands against the wish of the claimants and when they have lost their livelihood. This Court believes that the Reference Court had rightly awarded the additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 5/- to Rs. 16/- per square mtr. The award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer granting the compensation at the rate of Rs. 4/- to Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. was absolutely arbitrary. Hence the trial Court has rightly enhanced it to the tune of Rs. 20/- per square mtr.
7. It is well settled principle of law that the previous award/order passed by the Court relating to the lands of same village, if has attained finality, is a very good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining market value of similar lands acquired from the same village subsequently. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that when the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the First Appeal Nos. 797 to 819 of 1990 filed by the State, this Court would not interfere with the award passed by the Reference Court for the lands of the same village.
8. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw decree in terms of this judgement immediately. The remaining amount is directed to be disbursed to the respective claimants after verification of their identity, if not disbursed.
(BHAGWATI PRASAD, J) (pkn)