1. In the above captioned group of appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, what is challenged is the legality of common award dated 03.11.2006 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.276 to 295 of 1999. By the said award, the learned Civil Judge had awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.38.00 ps. per Sq. Mtr., as against the claim of Rs.50/- per Sq. Mtr. made by the claimants.
2. The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Saurashtra Branch Canal, Division No.2/4, Bhavnagar had proposed to acquire agricultural lands of village Navda, Taluka Dhandhuka, District Ahmedabad, for the purpose of construction of canal under Narmada Project. Pursuant to that, notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on 23.04.1997. Thereafter, the State Government made declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 10.12.1997. The interested persons were served with 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 Sq. Mtr. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.0.70 per Sq. Mtr.
3. The claimants, seeking higher compensation, submitted an application under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer their cases to the Court for the purpose of determining the just and fair compensation. Accordingly, the reference was made to the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) where they were registered as Land Reference Case Nos.276 to 295 of 1999.
4. On behalf of the claimants, one Ganshambhai Gajubhai was examined at Exh.31. The claimant in his deposition had referred an award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.984 of 1998. At his instance, the said award is exhibited as Exh.29. The said award is for the lands of village Navda for which notification under Section 4 was published on 04.01.1995. The claimant deposed that the lands acquired in the year 1995 and the lands for which the Reference Nos.276 to 295 of 1999 were filed, were only at a very short distance.
5. On behalf of the acquiring authorities, award at Exh. 35, measurement sheet at Exh.36, award statement at Exh.37 were produced. The appellant had not led any oral evidence and had not examined any witness in their support. On appreciation of the 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 very same village, was a relevant piece of evidence and furnished good guidance for the purpose of determining of the market value of the lands acquired in the instant case. The learned Judge noticed that notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on 04.01.1995 for the lands acquired earlier; whereas, in the instant case, the notification under the said Section was issued on 23.04.1997. He, thereafter, calculated the reasonable rise in the price of the lands at the rate of 10% per annum. For earlier acquisition of the lands, award at the rate of Rs.31.70 per Sq. Mtr. was passed. Considering that aspect, the Trial Judge derived a figure of Rs.38.70 per Sq. Mtr.
6. I have heard Ms. Trusha Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. Gopinath Amin, learned Counsel for the claimants. Ms. Patel submitted that the claimants had not produced sale bills or purchase bills to show the expenditure incurred by the claimants for fertilizers, seeds, medicines, etc. She further contended that even apart from the above bills, no document is produced to prove that the lands in dispute were of equal fertility, potentiality and having equal facilities as compared to the lands for which L.A.R. No.984 of 1998 was passed. She had contended that the learned Trial Judge had not discussed the aspect as to how the said award was comparable. In the alternative, she has contended that the award relied upon by the claimants has been modified by this Court and hence, the award passed in present case is also required to be modified proportionately. In response, Mr. Amin had submitted that as the lands of earlier reference were only at the short distance, it can safely be presumed that the award was comparable. He had further pointed out that the earlier reference was for the lands of the very same village.
7. It is well settled principle of law that the previous award passed by the Reference Court relating to the lands of same village, if has attained finality, is a very good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining market value of similar lands acquired from the same village subsequently. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court did not commit any error in enhancing the compensation. The Civil Court has passed a well reasoned judgment.
8. This Court has also considered the record and proceedings supplied by the learned counsel for the claimants which includes the documentary evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court. Having gone through the entire record, the learned Civil Judge has rightly considered the award passed in L.A.R. Case No. 984 of 1998 as the same was comparable in facts and circumstances of the present case. The said reference was for the nearly lands of the very same village having similar fertility, potentiality and facilities. During the course of hearing of these appeals, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has brought to the notice of this Court copy of the judgment of the High Court delivered in First Appeal Nos. 5107 to 5116 of 2006 on December 20, 2006. It indicates that the award of the Reference Court rendered in Land Acquisition Case Nos.984 of 1998 to 993 of 1998 was challenged by acquiring authorities before the High Court in First Appeal Nos. 5107 to 5116 of 2006 and the High Court by judgment dated December 20, 2006 came to the conclusion that the lands were acquired from the same village were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.29/- per Sq.Mtr. As noticed earlier, compensation payable to claimants, whose lands acquired from same village Navda is reduced by the High Court to Rs.29/- per Sq.Mtr. and, therefore, on the basis of the previous award of the Reference Court relating to lands of Navda, the claimants in the instant cases, would be entitled to get compensation, in all Rs.35.50 per Sq.Mtr. The record further shows that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was published in the Official Gazette on January 1, 1995 for acquired the lands from Navda, where in the instant case, the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, was published in the Official Gazette on April 23, 1997 and, therefore, in view of the time gap between the two notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act, the claimants would be entitled to reasonable rise in the price of the lands at the rate of 10% per annum. If the amount of compensation is calculated on the basis, this Court is of the opinion that the claimants would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.35.50 per Sq.Mtr. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified and to that extent, the appeals will have to be allowed in part.
9. For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals partly succeed. The judgments and award dated November 3, 2006 rendered by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 276 of 1999 to 295 of 1999 awarding amount of compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.38/- per Sq.Mtr. over and above the compensation awarded to them by the learned Special Land Acquisition officer at the rate of Rs.0.70 ps. per Sq.Mtr. Is hereby modified and it is held that the claimants would be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.35.50 ps. per Sq.Mtr. (Rs.34.80 per Sq.Mtr. Additional compensation) for their acquired lands. The other benefits which have been granted to the claimants by the impugned award are not interfered with and are hereby confirmed. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the above captioned appeals are partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment immediately. The amount deposited by the appellants at the time of admission of the appeals may be disbursed as per the judgment of the High Court to the respective claimants after verification of their identity, if not disbursed.
11. Office is directed to send R & P to the concerned authority.
omkar (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.)