The present First Appeal has been filed by the State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award rendered by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Reference Case No.1257 of 2010 on the grounds stated in the memo of Appeal inter alia that Reference Court has failed to appreciate the relevant aspects like quality or the fertility of the land acquired as well as the development of the area. It is also contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration the market price while issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act, which has not been appreciated. It is also contended that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate that burden to prove the claim is on the claimant and as they have failed to discharge the burden of proof, the award is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is also contended that the Reference Court has erred in relying upon the previous award and, therefore, the present Appeal may be allowed. Heard learned AGP Mr.P.P. Banaji for the appellants-State as well as learned counsel, Mr.Saiyed, who appears for the respondent-claimant.
In view of the detailed discussion in the impugned judgment of the Reference Court, there is a specific discussion with regard to quality and fertility of the land. It is also discussed and reflected with regard to other evidence including market value of the adjoining land or near vicinity. It may be noted that in previous order with regard to the land acquired of the same village : Janiyadra for the purpose of ONGC, the Land Reference Case No.10 of 2003 was decided and the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.4.50 per sq.mtrs., against which, Reference was made and ultimately, it was enhanced to Rs.39.95. by the Reference Court, which has not been assailed by way of Appeal before this Court as confirmed by learned AGP. Land in the present case is also of same village acquired though the purpose is different and the Reference Court has discussed with regard to the quality and fertility of the land and passed the impugned award fixing the same amount of the compensation. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any error, which would call for any interference. This Court is broadly in agreement with the findings arrived at and conclusion recorded and is not inclined to interfere with the present First Appeal. Therefore, the present First Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed in limine.
/patil
Sd/-
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)