(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE Z.K.SAIYED) 1. These appeals are arising from the common judgment and award dated 9.11.2011 passed by 8th Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch, in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.195 to 204 of 1997. Since common issue is involved in these appeals, they are disposed by this common judgment.
2. The appellant Corporation has acquired the land for Industrial colony at Ankleshwar. The award was published on 13.11.1987. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation, which the respondent found to be less, so the respondent herein applied for reference for getting additional compensation to the Civil Court, Bharuch under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which reference cases are decided by the judgment impugned herein.
3. Heard Ms.Sejal K. Mandavia, for the appellant and Mr.M.I.Merchant, for respondent Nos.1 and 1/1 and Mr.Niraj Ashar, learned AGP for the respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that lower Court ought to have considered the fact that the references are not filed within reasonable time and it is time barred. It is submitted that the land is Jirayat land and it is not fertile land. Adjacent to this land there is no facility of light, water etc. It is submitted that after taking possession of the land the appellant Corporation is leveling the land and making plots on it and providing facility of electricity lights, road etc., to the plotholders. However, upon a specific query being raised about the observations of reference Court in paragraph (9) of the judgment, learned advocate for the appellant could not give any satisfactory reply.
5. In paragraph (9) of the impugned judgment, Reference Court has recorded no objection of the applicants as well as opponents to the compensation being fixed as per the judgments Ex.41 and 49. The Reference Court has observed that, the judgment produced vide Ex.41 was rendered in Land Reference Case Nos.1261/93 to 1268/93 whereas the judgment at Ex.49 was rendered in Land Reference Case No.191/97 to 192/97. The judgment at Ex.49 was rendered by relying upon the judgment at Ex.41 produced in the case before the Reference Court. In the case of Ex.49, Land Reference Case No.191/97 to 192/97, advocates for the parties had submitted that if the compensation is fixed as per the judgment rendered in Land Reference Case Nos.1261/93 to 1268/93, they had no objection. In the aforesaid cases, lands of Village : Sanjli, Taluka : Ankleshwar were acquired for the purpose of establishing industrial township, meaning thereby the parties affected by acquisition of the lands in the present case are also practically the same. In the case of judgment at Ex.41, notification under Section 4 was dated 1.7.1982 and Section 6 notification was dated 5.2.1985 whereas in the present case Section 4 notification is dated 25.3.1982 and Section 6 notification is dated 1.3.1985. The award under Section 11 in the judgment at Ex.41 was declared on 3.11.1987, whereas in the present case also award under Section 11 was declared on 13.11.1987. Thus, Land Reference Cases are pertaining to same village and the purpose of acquisition of the land is also the same. Difference between the period of issuance of Section 4 notification in the present case and in the judgment at Ex.41 was of only 4 months. Therefore, after discussing at length the cases produced on behalf of the applicants vide Ex.11 and 36 in the present case, compensation has been fixed by relying upon judgment at Ex.41 and the judgment at Ex.49. Therefore, as discussed above, it was just and proper to rely upon the judgments at Ex.41 and 49. By taking into consideration the deposition as well as documentary evidence produced in the judgment at Ex.41 and by taking into consideration the fertility and quality of the land, market price of Rs.1067.00 per Are is fixed. Therefore, as discussed above, in the present case also considering the spot situation of the lands of survey numbers of the judgments at Ex.41 and 49 and the land under acquisition if the market price is fixed accordingly, it would be just and proper. Therefore, learned Reference Court has observed that the applicants before the said Court were also entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.1067.00 per Are.
6. In view of above discussion and since learned advocate for the appellant is unable to show any error committed by Reference Court while fixing the compensation by relying upon the judgments at Ex.41 and 49, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. In fact, at one stage it was fairly conceded by learned counsel for the appellant that they could not make out any ground against the observations of Reference Court in paragraph (9) of the impugned judgment whereby, after considering two earlier decisions, reference Court has decided compensation in the present case. Thus, inspite of not having any ground to agitate in present appeals against the judgment of the reference Court, present appeals are filed. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed with cost.
(D.H.WAGHELA, J.) (Z.K.SAIYED, J.) kks