The appellants, by filing these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (“Act” for short) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, have challenged the legality of common judgement and award dated 4.5.2006 rendered by the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 127 of 2005, 69 to 72 of 2006 and 176 to 178 of 2005 whereby the claimants have been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 23.80 per square metre for their acquired lands over and above the compensation offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs. 1.20 per square metre by his award dated 31.12.1997. 2. The Executive Engineer, Bhavnagar Irrigation and Maintenance Department, Bhavnagar, proposed to the State Government to acquire the lands of village Keriya, Taluka Ranpur, District Ahmedabad for “Sukhabhadar Sinchai Yojna, Rajkot”. On perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands mentioned in the said proposal were likely to be needed for the public purpose. Therefore, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, which was published in the official gazette on 10.5.1995. Thereafter, necessary inquiry was conducted under Section 5A(2) of the Act. On the basis of the report submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was published in the official gazette on 19.2.1996. The interested persons were thereafter served with the notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 31.12.1997, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 1.20 per square metre. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was totally inadequate. Therefore, the claimants submitted applications under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer their cases to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation payable to them. Accordingly, the References were made to the District Court, Ahmedabad, where they were registered as Land Acquisition Cases referred to hereinabove.
3. On behalf of the claimants, Shri Kamabhai Chhaganbhai was examined as a witness at Exh. 21. The witness has deposed that the lands in question were acquired for the purpose of irrigation scheme and the lands of the claimants are situated adjoining to each other. The witness has deposed that all the acquired lands are equal and fertile land and having irrigation facilities by wells and bore-wells. It is also stated by this witness that the village has milk society, co- operative societies, post office, primary school, pucca road, telephone facilities etc. The witness has also deposed that the claimants are taking two-three crops and earing net agricultural income of Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per vigha per year. It is further stated by the witness that the lands of adjoining village: Dharpipla were acquired earlier for the said purpose pursuant to notification issued under Section 4 of the Act on 12.12.1984 wherein the Reference Court by its judgement and award dated 27.1.1997 rendered in L.A. Case Nos. 72 to 101 of 1989 awarded total compensation at the rate of Rs. 12.50 per square metre. The claimants have also produced the judgement and award of the Reference Court in respect of the lands acquired from the same village at Exh. 25 wherein the Reference Court has awarded Rs. 25/- per square metre. Though this witness was cross-examined by the other side, nothing substantial could be brought on records.
4. On behalf of the appellants, Mukesh Chimanlal Parikh was examined at Exh. 27. In his cross-examination, this witness had admitted that he is holding the post at Keriya village area since last one and half months and has no personal knowledge about acquisition. It is also admitted by this witness that in village Dharpipla and village Keriya same crops are possible and that the price of the land is being increased day by day.
5. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference Court was of the opinion that the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village Dharpipla rendered in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 72 of 1989 to 101 of 1989 (Exh. 24) was a relevant piece of evidence for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands acquired in the present case. The Reference Court noticed that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the official gazette on 23.7.1984 for acquiring the lands of village Dharpipla whereas in the instant case it was published in the official gazette on 10.5.1995 and as there was time gap about 11 years, the claimants were entitled to reasonable rise in the price of lands at the rate of 10% per annum. The Reference Court also found that so far as the award rendered in L.A.R. Nos. 354 of 1999 and allied references, produced in respect of the lands acquired from the same village is concerned, therein notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 4.9.1995 and therein Reference Court has awarded total Rs. 25/- per square metre. In the ultimate analysis, the Reference Court has awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.
23.80 per square metre to the claimants by the impugned award which has given rise to the present appeals.
6. Heard the learned advocate for the parties. This Court has also perused the judgement of the Reference Court and other relevant evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court.
7. From the record of the case, it appears that the claimants have never claimed enhanced compensation either on the yield basis or comparable sale instances. What was relied upon by the claimants was previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village Dharpipla (Exh. 24). It is also submitted that the award Exh. 24 in respect of the lands of village Dharpipla is accepted by the Government and the amount is also paid. From the evidence, it appears that the lands of both the villages i.e. Dharpipla and Keriya are adjoining to each other and there is minor distance amongst them. It is also evident that fertility of the lands of both the villages is similar. It is well settled that previous award of the Reference Court relating to a village which has attained finality can be considered to be a good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining the market value of similar lands acquired subsequently from the adjoining village. As stated above, the award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of adjoining village Dharpipla has attained finality. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that no error was committed by the Reference Court in placing reliance on the previous award of the Reference Court for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands acquired in the instant case and giving 10% rise per year. On re-appreciation of the evidence adduced before the Reference Court, this Court is of the view that the finding recorded by the Reference Court that the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation on the basis of previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of adjoining village cannot be interfered with and deserves to be upheld.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgement and award of the Reference Court is hereby confirmed. There shall be no orders as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgement as early as possible.
9. The Registry is directed to send record and proceedings to the concerned lower Court forthwith.
(BHAGWATI PRASAD, J) (pkn)