The present Appeals have been filed by the Appellant - State under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court [Civil Judge (SD), Bharuch] in Land Reference Case Nos. 1194 of 2001 to 1206 of 2001 [ Main Land Reference Case No. 1194 of 2001].
Heard learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval for the Appellant and learned Advocate Mr. K.M.Sheth for the Respondents - Original Claimants.
The Appellant - State has challenged the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in aforesaid Land Reference Cases awarding additional compensation of Rs.46.12p subject to the addition of 8% for 2 months, which is worked out to Rs.3.81p. Thus, the Reference Court has added this amount to the compensation of Rs.47.81p + Rs.3.81p and has accordingly assessed the value of the land at Rs.51.62p. Out of this amount, as the Land Acquisition Officer has already awarded Rs.5.50p per sq. meter, the same has been deducted and the net additional compensation would come to Rs.46.12p per sq. meter. It is this judgment of the Reference Court which has been assailed in the present First Appeals on the grounds stated in the memo of Appeals.
The facts of the case briefly stated are that the lands of the Respondents - Original Claimants of village Karjan, Taluka Bharuch have been acquired for Narmada Project, - Shukaltirath Canal. The Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act have been issued on 27.8.1998 and 13.5.1999 respectively. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award under Section 11 of the Act awarding Rs.5.50p per sq. meter towards the price of the land acquired. The Respondents - Original Claimants have therefore filed a Reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court, which has, on the basis of the material and evidence, passed the impugned judgment and order awarding additional compensation, which is the subject matter of the present First Appeals.
Learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval made the submission that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the material and evidence on record. He submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the Land Acquisition Officer has made the award after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects. Learned AGP Mr. Raval has submitted that when comparable sale instances of near vicinity are available on record, it was required to be taken into consideration. Learned AGP Mr. Raval submitted that the Reference Court has erred in not relying upon the previous award. He submitted that the Court below ought to have ascertained whether the previous award attained finality or not. He submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the claimants have to prove their claims and discharge the burden of proof. He submitted that the Court below has erred in placing reliance on the previous award instead of placing reliance on the sale instances of the land in near vicinity and it ought to have considered 5 years sale instances of the nearby area to arrive at the market value of the land in question. Learned AGP Mr. Raval therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award is erroneous and requires to be quashed and set aside and / or modified.
Learned Advocate Mr. K.M.Sheth for the Respondents however submitted that the impugned judgment and award made by the Reference Court is just and proper. He submitted that as discussed, the Reference Court has considered all the relevant aspects like nature of land, yield as well as the previous award made in respect of the lands acquired of the same village Karjan. Learned Advocate Mr. Sheth also submitted that the previous award in respect of the land of the same village was carried by way of Appeal before this Court (Exh.11) in First Appeal No. 3964 of 2009 to 3971 of 2009 and this Court (Coram: H.K.Rathod,J) vide judgment and order dated 7.10.2009 has declined to entertain the Appeal preferred by the State. He therefore submitted that the present First Appeals may not be entertained.
Learned Advocate Mr. Sheth referred to the observations made in the aforesaid First Appeal Nos. 3964 of 2009 to 3971 of 2009 dated 7.10.2009. Learned Advocate Mr. Sheth has also referred to the judgment and order passed by this Court in First Appeal Nos. 1379 of 2012 to 1387 of 2012 dated 9.5.2012 and submitted that the Court has, while considering those Appeals in respect of the lands of the same village Karjan, has declined to interfere in the Appeal. He pointedly referred to the said order and submitted that it has dealt with the previous award and the judgment and order of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 3964 of 2009 to 3971 of 2009 dated 7.10.2009 as well as the order which has been passed in First Appeal (Stamp) Nos. 79 of 2010 to 87 of 2010, where the Appeals have been dismissed and the judgment in Land Reference Case No. 647 of 2009 at Exh.44 has been confirmed. Therefore, he has stated that the present Appeals may not be entertained.
In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present First Appeals can be entertained or not.
As could be seen from the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court, the Reference Court has made the detailed discussion with regard to the relevant criteria / aspects like nature of the land, situation of the land, yield and prospective development etc. The Court has also referred to the judgment in Land Reference Case No.42 of 1997 in respect of the same village Karjan which is confirmed as discussed above in First Appeal Nos. 3964 of 2009 to 3971 of 2009 by this Court (Coram: H.K.Rathod,J). Similarly, the Reference Court has also discussed about the judgment in Land Reference Case No. 647 of 1999 at Exh.39, which is also confirmed by this Court while deciding First Appeal (Stamp) No. 79 of 20120 to 87 of 2010. The Reference Court has therefore, on appreciation of material evidence and also relying upon the earlier judgments and the guidelines laid down by this Court on such aspects has decided the compensation at Rs.47.81p and 10% addition is suggested. However, as it was only for 8 months, a proportionate amount of Rs.3.81p has been added per sq. meter. Therefore, the Reference Court has assessed the market value at Rs.51.62p (Rs.47.81 + Rs.3.81) per sq. meter. It is specifically stated that after deducting Rs.5.50p from Rs.51.62p, the net amount would come to Rs.46.12 per sq. meter as additional compensation of the land acquired. Therefore, considering this aspect and also the judgment of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 1379 of 2012 to 1387 of 2012 dated 9.5.2012, which has again referred to the very issues with regard to the same contentions and the market value of the land of the same village Karjan, the judgment and award of the Reference Court cannot be said to be erroneous, which would call for any interference in the present First Appeals as this Court is in agreement with the findings and the conclusions arrived at by the Reference Court.
Therefore, the present First Appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stand dismissed.
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J) Jayanti* Top