(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1) The present appeal arises from the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, whereby the Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.35/- per square meter.
2) We have heard Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned Asst. Government Pleader for the appellants.
3) It is an undisputed position that the present matter is a part of the group of the other land acquisition cases being Land Reference Case Nos. 33 of 2006 to 40 of 2006, which were also carried before this Court in First Appeal Nos. 5244 of 2010 to 5249 of 2010 and those appeals have already been decided by this Court vide order dated 25.2.2011. The present matter is a left out matter of the said group.
4) We may record that in First Appeal Nos.5244 of 2010 to 5249 of 2010 and allied matters, this Court, for the reasons recorded in the said order, has dismissed the appeals. This Court has observed thus:
1. As in all the matters, common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered by this common order.
2. The short facts of the case are that, all lands under acquisition, the subject matter of the present appeals, are located at village Nalu, Taluka: Dhanpur for the project of Adalwada Irrigation Scheme. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was published on 4th March 2004, whereas, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 27th May 2004. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had passed the award under Section 11 of the Act on 15th January 2005 and had granted compensation at Rs.75,000/- per hectare for the non-irrigated land and Rs.90,000/- per hectare for irrigated land. As the original land owners were not satisfied with the compensation, they raised disputes which ultimately were referred to the Reference Court for adjudication. The Reference Court, after considering the matter, fixed the additional compensation at Rs. 35/- per sq. mtr. Plus the statutory benefit of increase, interest and solatium. Under the circumstances, the present appeals before this Court.
3. We may record that in Land Reference Case Nos. 33 of 2006 to 40 of 2006, the concerned First Appeals are 5244 of 2010 to 5249 of 2010, whereas, for Land Reference Case Nos. 19 of 2006 to 32 of 2006, the concerned First Appeals are 3653 of 2009 to 3666 of 2009.
4. We have heard Mr. Pranav Trivedi, learned A.G.P. for the appellants in all the matters and Mr. Vijay N. Raval for the respondents/original claimants and he has stated that he is representing all the original claimants in the present appeals. We have considered the judgment and the reasons recorded by the Reference Court in the concerned matters.
5. The learned counsel appearing for both the sides are not in a position to dispute that the present groups of matters are covered by earlier decision of this Court (Coram: Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari, J.J.) dated 02.08.2010 in First Appeals No. 2168 of 2010 and allied matters in respect of the acquisition of the land for village Adalwada. However, it was submitted that the present lands are located at village Nalu which is just adjacent to village Adalwada and the acquisition was as such for the project of Adalwada Irrigation Scheme and it was submitted that if the said decision is taken into consideration, the amount of Rs. 35/- per sq. mtr. for additional compensation fixed by the Reference Court may not be required to be interfered with.
6. This Court in the aforesaid decision in First Appeal No. 2168 of 2010 observed at para 4, 5 and 6 as under:
"4. The only contention raised on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer by the learned Assistant Government Pleader is that the Reference Court ought not to have relied upon the decision of other Reference Court for acquisition of the land of Jalod taluka. He submitted that unless evidence was there on record to show that the present lands were just adjacent to the land of Reference Case No. 254 of 2004, in respect to the lands of Jalod Taluka, the reliance placed is erroneous,therefore, it would be a case for remand of the matter to the Reference Court for re-consideration.
5. The examination of the said contention shows that it is not the only matter where the Reference Court has not at all considered the other aspects. In order to assess the valuation of the land,broadly, three modes or the yardsticks are settled. One is of the sale instances, the another is, if any award or compensation is fixed by the competent Court in respect to the similar land or adjacent land and the third is yield method. On the aspect of the sale instances, the Reference Court has considered, but the said aspect is not given weightage on the ground that there was no evidence which led to the effect that there was voluntary sale and voluntary purchase and/or fertility of the land for which, the sale instances were shown. The sale deeds were also not produced. On the aspect of yield method, the claim was of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre and the evidence, as was led on behalf of the claimants, was to the effect that the annual agricultural income from the land was Rs.1,00,00/- per acre per year. Learned Judge, while appreciating the evidence,has not fully relied upon the said aspects and has assessed yearly income of approximately Rs.30,000/- per acre. Out of the said amount, 50% is deducted towards expenses of the agriculture and net income assessed is Rs.15,000/- per acre.
6. The formula applied for capitalist value is 10 times of the annual income,therefore, the learned Judge has found that the market value would be considered as Rs.1,50,000/- per acre. If the said finding of the learned Judge is considered per sq.meter, the value of the land would be Rs.40 per sq.meter. It is in addition to the aforesaid finding, the learned Judge has relied upon the order of the Reference Court in Reference Case No. 254 of 2004 in respect to the other agricultural land of Jalod Taluka, wherein the additional compensation awarded was Rs.35/-. The pertinent aspect is that, as stated by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the said decision of the Reference Court in Reference Case No.254 of 2004 has been confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 4073 of 2007 and allied matters vide order dated 17.8.2007. Another aspect which is required to be taken note of is that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in that case was published on 22.1.2001 and the additional compensation awarded was Rs.35 per sq.meter. If the appreciation, at the rate of 10% per annum, is considered from the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act, in that case and the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case, it would be approximately 30% more since there is a gap of about 3 years in between. In spite of the same, the learned Judge has not considered the appreciated value and has taken the base as was granted on the basis of the valuation assessed in the year 2001 at Rs.35/- per sq.meter. Under these circumstances, we find that the contention that unless the land of Taluka Jalod, which was subject matter of Reference Case No.254 of 2004 was adjacent to the land in question,the Reference Court could not have relied upon the decision of the earlier award passed in respect to the land of Taluka Jalod, which would not only lose its importance but considering the case in either way, may be on the basis of the yield method or may be on the basis of the compensation fixed for similar land,it is not possible to accept the contention that the additional compensation awarded can be said to be unfair or improper."
7 If the reasoning recorded by the Reference Court is considered in light of the aforesaid observations made by this Court for the acquisition of land at village Adalwada, it is not possible for us to take a different view.
8. The attempt was made by the learned A.G.P. for the appellant to contend that there was distance of about 60 kilometers from the land which was covered in Land Reference Case No. 254 of 2004 pertaining to Jhalod Taluka which is considered as a basis by the Reference Court in the present matter and therefore it was submitted that the said aspect may be considered in the present matter.
9. We are afraid such can be considered in view of the aforesaid decision of this Court. Same fact situation prevailed in the earlier matter of First Appeal No. 2168 of 2010 and even though there was distance of about 60 kilometers from the land covered by Reference Case No. 254 of 2004, this Court accepted the compensation for the land of village Adalwada having found that no error has been committed by the Reference Court. On the contrary, if the appreciation is to be considered as it is, as observed in the above referred judgment and reproduced hereinabove, it could be 30% more in comparison to the land located at Taluka Jhalod, whereas, such appreciation was not given by the Reference Court in the said matter for the land at village Adalwada and such has also not been given in the present matter. Therefore, even if that aspect is considered, it would not lead us to take a different view than the view taken in First Appeal No. 2168 of 2010 and allied matters.
10. In view of the aforesaid, we find that same view deserves to be taken in the present matter. Hence, all the appeals are meritless and therefore dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
5) In view of the above, the present appeal is also meritless since it was a common judgment and award which was already confirmed by this Court as per the above referred judgment. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
(JAYANT PATEL,J.) (C.L.SONI,J.) Vahid Top