1. By filing these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [“the Act” for short] read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have challenged the legality of common judgment and award dated 31.07.2004 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bharuch, in Land Reference Cases No.1732 to 1743 of 1997 and 234 to 236 of 1998 whereby the claimants have been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.33.00 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.2.14 paise per square metre by his award dated 07.01.1997.
2. The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, proposed to the State Government to acquire the lands of Village: Pursha, Taluka: Amod, District: Bharuch for the public purpose of construction of Minor Canal of Narmada Canal. 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 22.11.1995. 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 12.06.1996. The interested persons were thereafter served with the notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per square metre. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 07.01.1997, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.2.14 paise 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, Bharuch, where they were registered as Land Reference Cases referred to hereinabove.
3. On behalf of the claimants, Kashamsha Haidarsha was examined as a witness at Exhibit 42. The witness has deposed that the claimants were taking 40 quintal of green tuver by two times and thereafter they were taking dry tuver of 12 quintal per acre per year. He deposed that they were getting Rs.63,500=00 per acre out of selling of green tuver and after deducting 35% from the said amount as expenses, they were getting Rs.40,500=00 per acre per year as net profit and they were getting net profit of Rs.14,800/- from the crop of dry tuver. Thus, in all they were getting net profit of Rs.65,300=00 per acre per year. It is also stated that the acquired lands were jirayat and fertile and having irrigation facility. The case of the claimants before the Reference Court was based on yield basis and in support of this, necessary evidence was also adduced by the claimants. On behalf of the claimants, an award passed by the Reference Court in respect of lands of Village: Roja Tankariya was produced at Exhibit 83 and the judgment rendered by the High Court in First Appeal No.3108 of 2000 and cognate matters was also produced. Though this witness was cross-examined by the other side, nothing substantial could be brought on record.
On behalf of the appellants, only one Shri Kanubhai Kantibhai Bhavsar was examined at Exhibit 50 and no documentary evidence was produced.
4. On the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference Court was of the opinion that the claimants have based their claim on yield basis. The Reference Court was also of the opinion that if the amount of compensation is determined on the yield basis, the amount payable to the claimants would come to Rs.41.95 paise per square metre. However, as the claimants produced previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Village: Roja Tankaria [Exhibit 83], the Reference Court held that it 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 07.12.1990 for acquiring the lands of Village: Roja Tankaria and therein on appreciation of the evidence, the Reference Court awarded Rs.22/- per square metre. The said award was challenged before this High Court and the High Court upheld the said award in First Appeals referred to above. In instant case notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the official gazette on 22.11.1995 and as there was time gap of about five years, the claimants were entitled to reasonable rise in price of lands at the rate of 10% per annum. In the ultimate analysis, the Reference Court has awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.33/- per square metre to the claimants by the impugned award, which has given rise to the present appeals.
5. Heard the learned advocates for the parties. This Court has also perused the judgment of the Reference Court and other relevant evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court.
6. From the record of the case, it appears that the claimants have based their claim on the yield basis. However, as the claimants relied upon previous award of Village: Roja Tankaria, the Reference Court held that the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Village: Roja Tankariya (Exhibit 83), which was confirmed by the High Court in First Appeal No.3108 of 2000 and cognate matters, was a relevant piece of evidence. It has also come on record that distance between these two villages is about 2 to 3 Kms. 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. 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. 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.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. The impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court is hereby confirmed. There shall be no orders. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment as early as possible.
Record and proceedings be sent back.
omkar [BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.]