1. By way of these appeals, the Appellant has challenged the common judgment and award dated 22.01.2008, passed by the learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana, in L.A.R. Case Nos. 4464 of 2003 & L.A.R. Case No. 4465 of 2003,whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed the references filed by the Original claimants and awarded an additional compensation to the original claimants at the rate of Rs. 20 and 18 respectively.
2. The facts of the present case are that the lands of the original claimants were acquired by the original opponent No.1, for the purpose of construction of Sharkam Well No. BLEI. After following all the procedure the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation to the claimants at Rs.07.25 Ps., Rs.7.50 Ps. & Rs.09.00 Ps. respectively per Square meter. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said award, the claimants made representation before the Land Acquisition Officer, Mehsana, and claimed Rs. 200.00 per Sq. meter. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer, Mehsana, referred the reference cases to the 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana. The learned Judge vide order dated 22.01.2008, partly allowed the references and awarded additional compensation to the original claimants at the rate of Rs. 20 and 18 respectively. Hence, this appeal is filed by the Opponent No.2-present appellant.
3. Heard learned Advocates for both the parties.
4. Mr.
R.R. Marshal, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, submitted that the Trial Court has wrongly given 10% increase. The land in question is in rural area and therefore, 10% increase is wrongly applied and it should be reduced to 7%. He also submitted that the Trial Court has committed error in comparing the area of the land which was compared in earlier award. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another, reported in 2008(4),G.L.R., Page 2833.
5. Mr.
A.V. Prajapati, learned Advocate for the respondents, submitted that the trial Court after considering the evidence on record, has rightly given 10% increase. Therefore, no interference is called for. He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Om Prakash Vs. State of Harayana and Others, reported in 2010, AIR, SCW, page- 5655.
6. In view of the consistent practice of this High Court not to enter into the merits of those appeals wherein the claim in appeal is small, and claims upto Rs.1,00,000/- have been quantified by this Court as petty claims. Therefore, this appeal is not maintainable. However, I have heard Mr. Marshal, learned Senior Advocate.
7. Before proceeding with the matter, it may be pointed out that the Corporation has acquired the lands of the original claimants and awarded a meager amount of Rs. 50,000/-, from which lands the claimants are making a huge profit by doing the agriculture work.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it is evident from the record that the trial Court while considering the matter has relied upon the earlier award of the same village, and accordingly awarded additional compensation of Rs. 18 and 20 to the original claimants respectively. It is also evident from the record that the lands acquired by the present appellant, in which development is shown. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the Trial Court has rightly awarded additional compensation to the original claimants.
9. In the premises aforesaid, I do not find any merits in these appeals. The appeals are therefore, dismissed.
(K.S.JHAVERI,J.) pawan Top