(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) 1. As all the appeals arise from the common judgement and award passed by the Reference Court, they are being considered simultaneously.
2. The relevant facts are that the lands at Village Unava, Taluka Unja, Mehsana were to be acquired under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 26.11.2001 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14.8.2002 and the award was passed on 10.7.2003 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.11/-, Rs.13.75, Rs.22/- and Rs.27.50 per sq. mtrs. The claimants, as were not satisfied with the compensation, raised the dispute under Section 18 of the Act and demanded compensation at Rs.1,500/- per sq. mtrs. Such disputes were referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Reference Case No.100 t0 156 of 2009. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the references, assessed the market value at Rs.356/- for the agricultural land and Rs.534/- for non- agricultural lands and after deducting the amount of compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the balance amount was awarded as additional compensation by the Reference Court being Rs.345/-, Rs.342.25 per sq. mtrs., for the respective agricultural lands and Rs.512/- and Rs.506.50 per sq. mtrs., for the respective non-agricultural lands. The Reference Court also awarded additional amount of compensation under Section 23(1-A), solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act and interest under Section 28 of the Act. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court.
3. We have heard Mr.Vijay Patel, learned Counsel for the appellants in all the appeals.
4. The contention was raised on behalf of the appellants that there were sale instances for showing the sale of the land at a higher price, but the Reference Court has not considered the said aspect. It was submitted that the learned Counsel for the appellants that the document at Exh. 18 shows that the land was sold at Rs.767/- per sq. mtrs., and the said document came in evidence of Mr.Dipakkumar Dwarkadas Patel (Exh. 33). The said aspect was not considered by the Reference Court. It was also submitted that there was another agreement to sell, which had come on record for sale of the land bearing Survey No.1424 and the price fixed was of Rs.2,194.60 per sq. mtrs., and, therefore, the learned Counsel submitted that if the said aspect is considered, then also it can be said that the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court was on a much lower side. Therefore, it was submitted that the appeals deserve consideration.
5. The examination of the contention further shows that the Reference Court, in the judgement, has considered at the initial stage the compensation awarded for the acquisition of the land at the very village Unava, whose market value was assessed at Rs.288/- per sq. mtrs. The Reference Court has also recorded that the aforesaid decision was carried before the High Court and thereafter further confirmed by the Apex Court and the price as stood confirmed was Rs.288/- per sq. mtrs. In normal circumstances when for acquisition of the other land was at the very Village and the matter is considered by the Reference Court and further by this Court and thereafter by the Apex Court, the quantum of compensation for the land under acquisition at the Village would be at par with the said amount after considering the appreciation at 10% per annum. The matter has not rested at that stage before the Reference Court, but the Reference Court has further considered another decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore, reported in 2010(3) GLH, 447, and has taken note of the fact and the District Panchayat, Mehsana had allotted the land at Rs.565/- per sq. mtrs. Thereafter, based on the principles laid down by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. (supra), the Reference Court has found it proper to give deduction of 40% and further appreciation of 5% for the time gap between the date of allotment and the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act and has come to the conclusion that Rs.356/- per sq. mtrs., would appropriate compensation for the agricultural land. So far as non-agricultural land is concerned, the Reference Court has considered the price at the same rate of Rs.565/- per sq.mtrs., and has reduced 10% towards distance factor and thereafter, has considered appreciation of 5% for six months' time gap between the date on which the land was allotted by the District Panchayat and the date on which the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the present case. Thereafter the Reference Court has arrived at the figure of Rs.534/- being appropriate compensation for non-agricultural land.
6. In our view, if the amount of compensation as awarded in the case of other land acquired at the very Village Unava is taken into consideration, the basis would be Rs.288/- per sq. mtrs., plus appreciation, if any, but instead of that, the better mode available with the Reference Court for assessment of the market value has been adopted. Therefore, we do not find that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is on a lower side as sought to be canvassed.
7. On the aspects of so-called sale instances and the agreement of sale, it is required to be recorded that the agreement to sell could not be termed at par with the sale instances and further the said agreement to sell was post Notification under Section 4 of the Act, inasmuch as the same was in the year 2002, whereas the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was in the year 2001. Further there is no material coming on record about the circumstances under which the document at Exh. 18 was executed, nor the comparison of the land, but the pertinent aspect is that the Reference Court has recorded that the said land is road-touched land and, therefore, under these circumstances, if the Reference Court has, on account of the location, not relied upon the same, and has considered more reliable evidence available for the allotment of the land by the District Panchayat at the very Village, such an approach could not be said to be erroneous.
8. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the appeals are meritless. Hence, dismissed.
(Jayant Patel, J.) (C. L. Soni, J.) vinod