1. By filing these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the appellants have challenged the legality of common judgment and award dated 29.08.2008 rendered by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar in Land Reference Case Nos.950 of 1998, 952 of 1998, 955 of 1998, 958 of 1998 and 959 of 1998, by which the Reference Court has awarded in all compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.55.50 paise per sq.mtr. as additional amount of compensation.
2. The Executive Engineer, Jilla Panchayat, Gandhinagar made proposal to the State Government to acquire lands of Village – Raipur, Taluka & District – Gandhinagar for the purpose of construction of road from Viratalvadi to Raipur. On perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of Village – Raipur were likely to be needed for the said purpose. Therefore, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on 13.09.1990. After considering objections from the claimants, necessary report contemplated under section 5A(2) of the Act was forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the State Government and on considering the said report, Government was satisfied that the land of village – Raipur, Taluka & District – Gandhinagar were needed for the public purpose as mentioned above.
3. Therefore, declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act, which were published in the Official Gazette on 29.11.1990. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the present claimants at the rate of Rs.2.25 per sq.mts. Since the said amount of compensation was inadequate, the claimants submitted application under section 18 of the Act requiring the Officer to refer their case to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation payable to them and accordingly, reference was made to the Reference Court, Gandhinagar which was registered as L.A.R. No.942 of 1998 and other allied reference cases.
4. On behalf of the claimants, Shri Ishwarbhai Marghabhai Patel was examined at Exhibit – 46. Over and above stating that the lands acquired were highly fertile and that each claimant was earning substantial income from the sale of the agricultural produces, the said witness produced previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of very village – Raipur at Exhibit – 44 in support of the claim of the claimants for enhanced compensation. The witness further stated in his testimony that the lands of very Village – Raipur and lands of present Village – Raipur were similar in all respects including quality. The claimant further submitted that against the judgment of same village Raipur, the government has not preferred any appeal before the higher forum. The witness examined on behalf of the claimants was cross examined by the appellants but nothing substantial could be elicited.
5. On behalf of the appellants, it is was submitted that claimants have failed to prove that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and they have failed to prove that the lands under reference and under previous award are not similar and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is determined after considering several aspects and therefore, the award passed by the officer is proper.
6. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the claimants, the Reference Court was of the opinion that previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of same village Raipur was relevant piece of evidence at Exh.44 and furnished good guidance for the purpose of determining market value of the lands subsequently acquired from this village. After placing reliance on the previous award of the Reference Court, the Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 55.50 paise per sq.mrs. by impugned judgment, giving rise to these appeals.
7. This Court has heard Mr.P.P.Banaji, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants. From the record of the case it is evident that the evidence tendered by witness Ishwarbhai Marghabhai Patel at Exhibit – 46 was almost allowed to go unchallenged. The record does not indicate that the claimants had claimed enhanced compensation on yield basis or on the basis of comparable sale instances. What was relied upon by the claimants in support of their claim for enhanced compensation was previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of same village Raipur, which was produced at Exhibit – 44. It is admitted by witness on behalf of the opponents that the said judgment has been accepted by the government and they have not filed any appeal against the said judgment and they are ready to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants of previous judgment. Therefore, reference court has relied on the judgment of same village – Raipur at Exh.44 and after considering the evidence in detail, came to the conclusion that previous ward of the reference court relating to the land of adjoining village or same village which has attained finality can be relied upon as a good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining the market value of the similar and acquired subsequently, from the adjoining and nearby village. It is further held by the reference court that in the case of same village, notification under section 4 was issued on 05.03.1986 whereas in the present case, notification under section 4 of the act was issued on 13.09.1990, therefore, considering the period of gap of four years, and keeping in mind increase of 10% per year, the reference court awarded Rs.57.75 paise per sq.mtr. (Rs.41.25 per sq.mrs. as per previous award + Rs.16.50 per sq.mts. being 10% rise for four years) and from the said amount of Rs.57.75 per sq.mtrs., the amount awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer being Rs.2.25 paise per sq.mtrs. is deducted, therefore, Rs.55.50 paise per sq.mtrs. is awarded. On reappreciation of the evidence produced by the claimants, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has recorded correct findings of fact to which settled principle of law have been applied. No error could be pointed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader necessitating interference of this Court with the award impugned in the instant appeals. The learned Assistant Government Pleader could not persuade this Court to take a view different than the one which is taken by the Reference Court on appreciation of evidence. Under the circumstances, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of above, the appeals fail and are dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw decree in terms of this order as early as possible.
[M.D.Shah, J.] satish