Patel Chamanbhai Hargovanbhai ­S

1. By filing these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the appellants have challenged the legality of common judgment and award dated 31.08.2009 rendered by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Patan in Land Reference Case Nos.1089 of 2006 to 1103 of 2006 (Main Land Reference Case No.1091 of 2006), by which the Reference Court has awarded in all compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.32.50 paise per sq.mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.31/­ per sq. mtr. for non­irrigated land as compensation.

2. The Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Mehsana, made proposal to the State Government to acquire lands of Village – Kamboi, Taluka – Chansma, District – Patan for the purpose of construction of Narmada canal under Narmada project. On perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of Village – Kamboi were likely to be needed for the said purpose. Therefore, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on 29.02.1996. After considering objections from the claimants, necessary report contemplated under section 5A(2) of the Act was forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the State Government and on considering the said report, Government was satisfied that the land of village – Kamboi were needed for the public purpose as mentioned above.

3. Therefore, declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act, which were published in the Official Gazette on 22.07.1996. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the present claimants at the rate of Rs.4.50 per sq.mts. for the irrigated land and Rs.3.00 paise per sq.mtrs. for non irrigated land. Since the said amount of compensation was inadequate, the claimants submitted application under section 18 of the Act requiring the Officer to refer their case to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation payable to them and accordingly, reference was made to the Reference Court, Patan which was registered as L.R.C. No.1089 of 2006 to 1103 of 2006.

4. On behalf of the claimants, Shri Patel Chamanbhai Hargovanbhai was examined at Exhibit – 16. Over and above stating that the lands acquired were highly fertile and that each claimant was earning substantial income from the sale of the agricultural produces, the said witness produced previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village – Khorsam at Exhibit – 15 in support of the claim of the claimants for enhanced compensation. The witness further stated in his testimony that the lands of Village – Kamboi and land of Village – Khorsam were adjoining villages. The witness examined on behalf of the claimants was cross­examined by the appellants but nothing substantial could be elicited.

5. On behalf of the appellants, it is was submitted that claimants have failed to prove that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and they have failed to prove that the lands under reference and under previous award are not similar and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is determined after considering several aspects and therefore, the award passed by the officer is proper.

6. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the claimants, the Reference Court was of the opinion that previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village ­ Khorsam was relevant piece of evidence at Exh.15 and furnished good guidance for the purpose of determining market value of the lands subsequently acquired from this village. After placing reliance on the previous award of the Reference Court, the Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.32.50 paise per sq.mrs. for irrigated land and Rs.31/­ for non­irrigated land, by impugned judgment, giving rise to these appeals.

7. This Court has heard Mr.P.P.Banaji, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants. From the record of the case it is evident that the evidence tendered by witness ­ Patel Chamanbhai Hargovanbhai at Exhibit – 16 was almost allowed to go unchallenged. The record does not indicate that the claimants had claimed enhanced compensation on yield basis or on the basis of comparable sale instances. What was relied upon by the claimants in support of their claim for enhanced compensation was previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village ­ Khorsam which was produced at Exhibit – 15. The State Government has challenged the judgment passed by the Reference Court relating to village Khrosam by way of filing First Appeal Nos.4636 to 4649 of 2007, wherein this Court has determined the market value of the land of village Khrosam at Rs.26 per sq.mtrs. as additional amount of compensation and therefore, the total amount of compensation is determined at the rate of Rs.31.10 per sq.mtrs.

(Rs.26 + Rs.5.10). The previous award of the Reference Court relating to the land of adjoining village which has attained finality can be relied upon as good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining the market value of similar and nearby village. Accordingly, the reference court has relied on the judgment of adjoining village – Khorsam at Exh.15 and after considering the evidence in detail, came to the conclusion that in case of village Khorsam, notification under section 4 was issued on 14.12.1994 whereas in the present case, notification under section 4 of the act was issued on 29.02.1996, therefore, considering the period of gap of one year and 2 months, and keeping in mind increase of 7.5% per year instead of 10%, the reference court awarded Rs.32.50 paise per sq.mtr. (Rs.26 per sq.mrs. as per previous award of Khorsam village + Rs.2.00 per sq.mts. being 7.5% rise for one year and 2 months) and from the said amount of Rs.32.50 per sq.mtrs. and Rs.31/­ for non­irrigated land in all. On re­appreciation of the evidence produced by the claimants, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has recorded correct findings of fact to which settled principle of law have been applied. No error could be pointed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader necessitating interference of this Court with the award impugned in the instant appeals. The learned Assistant Government Pleader could not persuade this Court to take a view different than the one which is taken by the Reference Court on appreciation of evidence. Under the circumstances, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

8. In view of above, the appeals fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw decree in terms of this order as early as possible.

[M.D.Shah, J.] ynvyas