1. Heard Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate with Mr. Hitesh Patel for the appellants, Mr. Bhavesh D. Hajare, learned AGP for the Special Land Acquisition Officer and Mr. Valmik Vyas, learned advocate for Mr. Ajay Mehta for the acquiring body in all the appeals.
2. By the present appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the appellants – original claimants have challenged the judgment and award passed in LAR Nos.218 to 224 of 2002 dated 13.5.2009.
3. This Court (Coram: K.M. Thaker, J.) vide order dated 13.4.2010 passed the following order: “When the matter is called out, Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate for the appellants, is not present. It is reported that he has filed sick note.
Notice for final disposal returnable on 28th April, 2010.
Direct service is permitted.
Direct service shall be effected on or before 19th April, 2010.”
4. The record and proceedings are called for accordingly as per the order dated 7.7.2010. The undisputed facts which can be culled out from the record of the appeals are that the land in question is acquired for the public purpose for Oil and Natural Gas Commission. It appears from the record that on a proposal made by the acquiring body, the State issued a notification as provided under Section 4 of the Act on 15.4.2000 which was followed by notification under Section 6 of the Act published on 14.3.2001. Ultimately, the land acquisition proceedings culminated into an award passed under Section 11 of the Act which was made and declared by the Special Land Acquisition officer respondent No.1 herein on 23.10.2001 whereby the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs.10/ per sq. mtr.
5. It appears from the record that the lands so acquired are situated at Village Dhamasana, Taluka Kalol, District Gandhinagar. It further appears from the record of the petition that it is just adjoining the boundary of Kalol town. The original claimants, being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the award dated 23.10.2001 at Rs.10/ per sq. mtr., preferred an application for enhancement of the compensation as provided under Section 18 of the Act. The applications so filed before the Special Land Acquisition Officer were referred and the said reference came to be registered as LAR Nos.218 to 224 of 2002 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kalol, the Court having competent jurisdiction as provided under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court, after considering the evidence led, by a judgment and award dated 13.5.2009 determined the market value of the land acquired at Rs.70/ per sq. mtr. and being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the present appeals are filed.
6. Mr. Yatin Soni, learned advocate for the appellants – original claimants has taken this Court through the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Soni contended that the claimants had adduced documents as well as oral evidence to prove that the demand raised in the application to the tune of Rs.500/ per sq. mtr. is the correct market value. Mr. Soni, however, candidly submitted that by Exh.22 evidence was also adduced to the effect that the land acquired is just adjoining the boundary of Kalol town. Mr. Soni further submitted that in case of acquisition of lands of Kalol which is adjoining, by a judgment and award passed in LAR No.782 of 1994 wherein Section 4 notification was much prior in time, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.185/ per sq. mtr. However, while appreciating the judgment and award passed in LAR No.782 of 1994, on one hand, the Reference Court has considered the geographical location of the land in question and has opined that it is at a distance of 5 km. from the boundary of Kalol. However, by mere imagination, the market value of the land acquired is fixed at Rs.70/ per sq. mtr. without assigning any reason and without any further discussion of the judgment and award, which is made the basis of the present award and therefore, the impugned judgment and award awarding Rs.70/ per sq. mtr. is as such without any basis and in a way an unreasoned award. It is also submitted that thus, there is total non consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties. Mr. Soni, therefore, submitted that the interest of justice would be served if the impugned judgment and award is quashed and set aside and the original Reference Applications are remanded back for its rehearing on merits to the Reference Court.
7. Mr. Valmik Vyas, learned advocate for Mr. Ajay Mehta for the acquiring body and Mr. Bhavesh Hajare, learned AGP have candidly registered their protest that too, without any further elaboration or reasons for the same. Mr. Vyas, however, submitted that during pendency of hearing of these appeals, the acquiring body, through respondent No.2 herein, has deposited the amount of compensation as per the impugned judgment and award and the same was deposited before the Reference Court. Mr. Vyas, therefore, submitted that even if this Court accepts that the impugned award requires to be quashed and set aside and the matters are required to be remanded back for its rehearing, the amount of compensation so deposited as per the impugned judgment and award may not be disbursed amongst
8. Considering the record and proceedings which are made available and on bare perusal of the judgment and award impugned in this group of appeals, this Court finds that having relied upon the judgment and award passed in LAR No.782 of 1994 at Exh.23 and having considered the geographical location of the lands acquired in the present case and even mentioning the factors which are relevant for consideration of the market value, has straightway fixed Rs.70/ per sq. mtr. This Court finds that no reasons are assigned to come to the conclusion that the correct market value of the lands in question which are acquired in these appeals is Rs.70/ per sq. mtr. Having relied upon the previous award which is permissible and on the contrary, it is one of the best piece of evidence, the Reference Court ought to have considered the same in light of the conditions which are mentioned by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment while coming to the conclusion that the market value of the lands acquired is Rs.70/ per sq. mtr. This Court, with respect, finds that the aforesaid exercise is absent in the impugned judgment and award and therefore, without expressing any further opinion on merits, this is a fit case to remand the matters, as rightly contended by Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the original claimants. The original claimants as well as the acquiring body and the State Government shall get proper opportunity to place their respective cases/ claims before the Reference Court and the Reference Court shall be able to determine the correct market value of the lands acquired.
9. The contention raised by Mr. Vyas to the effect that the amount so deposited before the Reference Court as per the impugned judgment and award may not be disbursed during rehearing of the Reference Applications is more than reasonable and the same is not even objected to by Mr. Soni.
10. In light of of the aforesaid, the appeals deserve to be accepted. The common impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court i.e. Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol in LAR Nos.218 of 2002 to 224 of 2002 is hereby quashed and set aside and all the matters are hereby remanded back to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kalol for its fresh hearing on merits. It is, however, made clear that such an exercise shall be completed within a period of one year from the date of receipt of this judgment. Mr. Soni, learned advocate for the claimants, Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the acquiring body and Mr. Hajare, learned AGP assure this Court that the parties shall cooperate with the Reference Court for disposal of the aforesaid matters within the time limit prescribed in this judgment. The amount of compensation deposited by the acquiring body, as aforesaid, shall not be disbursed till the references are heard and the judgment and award is passed by the Reference Court, after hearing the parties.
11. It goes without saying that as the matters are remanded for its rehearing, it would be open for the parties to adduce additional/ fresh evidence and raise all contentions that are available under the law. It is, however, made clear that the Reference Court shall decide the matters, as remanded by this judgment, afresh on its own merits, without being influenced by the earlier judgment and award passed in the LAR Nos.218 of 2002 to 224 of 2002 as well as this judgment.
12. Accordingly, these appeals are allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. The record and proceedings shall be sent forthwith.
mrpandya (R.M.CHHAYA, J.)