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 21.04.2004 passed by the Joint District Judge, Dhrangadhra in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.52 to 62 of 1998. By the said award, the learned Civil Judge had awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.8.8 per Sq. Mtr.
2. The lands of village Panva, Taluka Dasada, District Surendranagar were acquired for the public purpose of Narmada Canal Yojana. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on 21.9.1993. Thereafter, the State Government made declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 8.8.1994. 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.10/- per Sq. Mtr. However, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.0.8 per Sq. Mtr. for non non- irrigated lands and Rs.1.20 per Sq.Mtr. for irrigated lands.
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 Joint District Court, Dhrangadhra; where they were registered as Land Reference Case Nos.52 to 62 of 1998.
4. On behalf of the claimants, one Ranchhodbhai Gandabhai Prajapati was examined at Exh.26. The claimant in his deposition had referred an award passed in Land Acquisition Reference No.1571 of 1987. At his instance, the said award is exhibited as Exh.32. The said award is for the lands of village Varmol for which notification under Section 4 was published on 10.11.1986. The claimant deposed that the lands acquired in the year 1986 and the lands for which the Reference Nos.52 to 62 of 1998 were filed, were only at a very short distance. Varmol is the adjoining village of village Panva. Though the said witness was cross-examined for the learned counsel for the acquiring authorities, nothing substantial could be elicited, nor the assertions made by the witness could be demonstrated to be false.
5. The claimants had also placed reliance on the award passed in L.R.C. No.660 of 1998 for village Jinjunvada. The Notification under Section 4 was issued in the said case on 25.7.1986 and the compensation was given at the rate of Rs.6/- per Sq.Mtr.
6. The appellant had examined one Mr. Pravinkumar Popatlal Patel, Dy. Collector vide Exh.48 and one Mr. Ruknoddin Bapjiraj Malek, Talati of Panva. The Talati had deposed that village Panva was 8-10 Kms. away from village Varmol. Mr. P.P. Patel, Dy. Collector had in his cross-examination admitted that vendors or the purchasers of the lands of which sale deeds were relied upon, were not examined. He admitted that only on basis of the entries made in the village record, the award was passed.
7. 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 adjoining 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 04.10.1986 and 25.7.1986 for the lands acquired earlier; whereas, in the instant case, the notification under the said Section was issued on 21.01.1993. 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.5.5 and Rs.6/- per Sq. Mtr. respectively were passed. Considering that aspect, the Trial Judge derived a figure of Rs.10/- per Sq. Mtr.
8. I have heard Ms. Trusha Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. Thakar, 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.1571 of 1987 and L.A.R. No.660 of 1998 were passed. She had contended that the learned Trial Judge had not discussed the aspect as to how the said award was comparable. She has further contended that the cross-examination of the claimant revealed that no land of the village of which the lands were acquired was sold at higher price. Even valuation made in Jantri is not considered. She has contended that the land for which the award passed in LAR No.1571 of 1987 was at the distance of 8- 10 Kms. Away from the lands in dispute. By giving such details, she tried to contend that the award passed in LAR No.1571 of 1987 was not comparable. She has further contended that even if the said award is comparable, the claimants would not be entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.10/-. On calculation, as she submitted, the market price would not be more than Rs.8/- per Sq.Mtr.
9. In response to her contentions, Mr. Thakar had submitted that as the lands of earlier reference were of adjoining village, it could safely be presumed that the awards were comparable. He had further contended that the Civil Court had rightly compared the award passed in LAR No.660 of 1998 and had rightly awarded Rs.10/- per Sq.Mtr.
10. 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, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the learned Civil Judge was absolutely just and proper. The learned Civil Judge has rightly considered the award passed in LAR Case No.1571 of 1987 and LAR Case No.660 of 1998 as the same were comparable in facts and circumstances of the present case. The said references were for the lands of the adjoining villages, having similar fertility, potentiality and facilities. Earlier awards cannot be discarded on the ground that it is not for the lands of the same village. What is required to be considered is the similarity in facilities, fertility and potentiality.
11. It is well settled principle of law that the previous award passed by the Reference Court relating to the lands of adjoining 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. This Court, therefore, finds no reason to interfere with the award passed by the Reference Court in L.A.R. No.52 to 62 of 1998.
12. For the foregoing reasons, the above captioned appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment immediately. The remaining amount of compensation, if not disbursed, may be disbursed to the respective claimants after verification of their identity.
13. Office is directed to send R & P to the concerned authority.
omkar (BHAGWATI PRASAD, J.)