[1] The present appeals have been preferred by the State of Gujarat against the common Judgment dated 31.03.2008 passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Land Reference Case Nos.1863 to 1865 of 1999, whereby the Reference preferred by the claimants was partly allowed by granting compensation @ Rs. 19.90/ per sq. meter. The appellant has also challenged the award for severance, awarded at the rate of 1/6th of the market price.
[2] In the present case, Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, was issued on 22.12.1994 by the State Government for acquiring the land for the purpose of construction of Canal under Narmada Canal Project. Thereafter, Notification under section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, was published on 10.09.1996. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the present claimant at the rate of Rs.21,000/ per hector for irrigated land. Since the said amount of compensation was inadequate, the claimant submitted application under section 18 of the Act requiring the Officer to refer the 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, Vadodara which was registered as L.R.C.No.1863 to 1865 of 1999. After considering the evidence on record produced by both the parties, the Reference Court i.e. 4th Additional Civil Judge, Vadodara by his judgment and order dated 31.03.2008 awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.19.90 per sq.mtr. The Reference Court has also awarded compensation to the claimant for severance of the land at the rate of 1/6th of the market price. Therefore, the State Government has challenged the said judgment and order.
[3] Learned AGP appearing on behalf of the appellant – State Government has stated that looking to the evidence on record, the price of the land fixed by the Reference Court is too high, therefore, it is required to be reduced accordingly. It is also submitted that amount at the rate of 1/6th of the market value for severance given to the claimant is not justified. It is further submitted that claimants are not entitled for severance, as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Sp.Land Officer v/s. Bhikabhai Ranchodbhai Patel reported in 2007 (O) GLHEL HC 217607.
[4] Mr. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, submitted that the award of the Reference Court is legal and proper inasmuch as the Reference Court has relied on the earlier judgment and award rendered in Reference Case Nos.1537 of 1999 wherein land of adjacent village Mundhela was considered. Considering the evidence produced by the parties, vide its judgment and award dated 31.03.2008 the Trial Court was pleased to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.19.90/ per Sq.Mtr., and awarded compensation for damages caused to the claimants for severance of their lands at the rate of 1/6th of the market value. It is submitted that in the above referred award, the land was of the adjacent village Mudhela and the purpose of acquisition was also the same as in the present case, i.e. for the construction of the canal for Narmada Project. Learned advocate for the respondents – claimants has relied on following decisions, wherein for the adjacent village Mundhela, this Court has dismissed the appeals :
(a) First Appeal Nos.2200 of 2008 to 2205 of 2008
(b) First Appeal No.2033 of 2008 to 2035 of 2008
(c) First Appeal No.2395 of 2008 to 2398 of 2008
(d) First Appeal No.3804 of 2009 to 3806 of 2009
[5] The Reference Court after considering judgement delivered in Reference Case No.1537 of 1999 has calculated Rs.19.90 per sq.mtr. It is also submitted by Mr. Patel for the respondent that both the acquisitions are of the adjacent village and the purpose of acquisition is the same and the evidence were also practically common in both the proceedings. Looking to that, it was contended that even though learned Judge has stated in the the order that compensation would come to Rs.22.00 ps., but finally, the learned Judge has fixed the compensation at Rs.19.90/ per Sq.Mtr.
[6] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the oral and documentary evidences, this Court is of the opinion that that once there is an award of the Reference Court for the same purpose of the adjacent village and said Reference is accepted by either parties and as it is final, there is no illegality committed by the Reference Court in following the earlier award in Land Reference Case Nos.1537 of 1999 of adjacent village – Mundhela and reasoning given by the learned Judge is also just, legal and proper and is in accordance with the evidence on record. Mr.Patel, learned advocate for the respondent took this court through deposition of the Land Acquisition Officer. It is admitted by the officer in no uncertain terms that because of the division of land on account of canal being constructed, there is some difficulty in going to the field.
[7] The advocate for the appellants failed to point out that the learned Judge has committed any error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and also following the earlier Reference in Land Reference Case Nos. 1537 of 1999, which is of the adjacent village and the purpose for acquisition is the same. So far as judgment relied on by the learned AGP for the appellants in the case of Bhikhabhi Ranchodbhai Patel (supra) is concerned, this Court is in agreement with the ratio laid down by the Court. However, the same pertains to village Navi Jethardi, Taluka – Kanjan and village – Singaniya is totally different village. Therefore, said case would not be helpful to the appellants. Hence, compensation for damages caused to the claimants for severance of the land at the rate of 1/6th of the market price does not call any interference and it is hereby confirmed.
[8] This Court vide judgement and order dated 04.07.2008 in First Appeal Nos. 2200 of 2008 to First Appeal No.2205 of 2008 upheld the award of the Reference Court relating to the construction of Canal at adjacent village – Mundhela. In the present appeal, the issue is related to the village – Singaniya, which is adjacent to village Mundhela. The judgement and order dated 04.07.2008 passed in First Appeal No. 2200 of 2008 to First Appeal No. 2205 of 2008 is reproduced as under:
“1. The State of Gujarat and others have preferred appeals challenging the common judgment and award of the Reference Court, Baroda in Land Reference Case Nos. 1505 of 1999 to 1510 of 1999, by which the Reference Court has awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.17.50 per Sq.Mtr., appellant has also challenged the award for severance, awarded at the rate of 1/6th of the market price.
2. In the present case, the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short) was issued on 10.8.1995 by the State Government for acquiring the land for the purpose of construction of Bharuch Canal for the Narmada Project passing through village Mudhela in Taluka Savli, District Vadodara. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 10.10.1996, finally acquiring the land for the said purpose. Thereafter, public notice under Section 9 of the Act for compensation was published, the Land Acquisition Officer has confirmed the common judgment and award in Case No.246 of 1995 and other group of matters on 12.12.1997. By the said award, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation of the land at the rate of Rs.4.50 per Sq.Mtr., for irrigated land and Rs.3/ per Sq.Mtr. for nonirrigated land.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award, the claimants have filed References under Section 18 of the Act. The said References were numbered as Land Reference Case Nos. 1505 of 1999 to 1510 of 1999. The evidence was led in Land Reference Case No.1506 of 1999. After considering the evidence on record produced by both the parties, the Reference Court, i.e. 9th Additional Civil Judge, Vadodara by his judgment and order dated 6.12.2006 awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.17.50 ps. per Sq. Mtr. The Reference Court has also awarded compensation for the damages of cost to the claimants for severance of their lands at the rate of 1/6th of the market price and also passed consequential order including of interest.
The State Government has challenged the above referred common judgment and award dated 6.12.2006 in these groups of First Appeals. These matters are heard finally with the consent of the counsel for the respective parties.
4. Mr. Trusha Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants contended that, looking to the evidence on record, the price of the land fixed by the Reference Court is too high, therefore, it is required to be reduced reasonably. She further contended that the amount at the rate of 1/6th of the market value for severance given to the claimants is not justified.
5. Mr. Jitendra M. Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the award of the Reference Court is quite legal and proper inasmuch as the Reference Court has relied on the earlier judgment and award rendered in Reference Case Nos.152 of 1993 to 163 of 1993. In the said References, the Notification under Section 4 was published on 21.3.1991 and the Reference Court after considering the evidence produced by the parties, vide its judgment and award dated 17.7.2001 was pleased to fix the compensation at the rate of Rs.15/ per Sq.Mtr., and awarded compensation for damages caused to the claimants for severance of their lands at the rate of 1/6th of the market value. He has also submitted that it is an admitted fact on record that the said Land Reference Case Nos. 152 of 1993 to 163 of 1993 are final as none of the parties have challenged the same before the higher forum and disbursement is made accordingly. Thus, it is final award. It is pertinent to note that in the above referred award, the land was of the same village Mudhela and the purpose of acquisition was also the same as in the present case, i.e. for the construction of the branch canal for Narmada Project.
The Reference Court after considering and comparing the notification under Section 4 in earlier award above referred and notification under Section 4 in the present case, dated 10.8.1995 and in view of the difference of 53 months (i.e. 4 years and 5 months) between two notifications, he has calculated Rs.8.25 ps. per Sq.Mtr. As increase in market value of land between two notifications. Thus, it is calculated at Rs.15.00 + Rs.8.25 ps. =Rs.23.25 ps. per Sq.Mtr. It is also submitted by Mr. Patel for the respondents that both the acquisitions are of the same village and the purpose of acquisition is the same and the evidence were also practically common in both the proceedings. Looking to that, it was contended that even though learned Judge has stated in the body of the order that compensation would come to Rs.23.25 ps., but finally, the learned Judge has fixed the compensation at Rs.22/ per Sq.Mtr. Thus, the Reference Court has already reduced Rs.1.25 ps. per Sq.Mtr., without there being any justification. Shri Patel has also submitted that when there is an award of the same village and for the same purpose, then the Reference Court is bound to follow the same in view of the settled legal position.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the oral and documentary evidences, I come to the conclusion that once there is an award of the Reference Court for the same purpose and of the same village and said Reference is accepted by either parties and as it is final, there is no illegality committed by the Reference Court in following the earlier award in Land Reference Case Nos. 152 of 1993 to 163 of 1993 and reasoning given by the learned Judge is also just, legal and proper and is in accordance with the evidence on record.
The advocate for the appellants failed to point out that the learned Judge has committed any error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and also following the earlier Reference in Land Reference Case Nos. 152 of 1993 to 163 of 1993, which is of the same village and the purpose for acquisition is the same. Regarding compensation for damages caused to the claimants for severance of their land at the rate of 1/6th of the market price does not call any interference and it is hereby confirmed.
7. In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled legal position, I find no merits and justifiable reasons to interfere with the judgment and award under challenge, hence, the First Appeals deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly.
8. It is ordered that the total amount of compensation fixed by the Court is to be deposited by the appellants within four weeks from the date of this order before the concerned Trial Court and the Trial Court is directed to disburse the amount of compensation as per the judgment as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no orders. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment as early as possible.
Office is directed to send R & P to the concerned authority.”
[9] In view of the aforesaid decision and settled legal position, this Court finds no merits and reasons to interfere with the judgment and award under challenge, hence, the First Appeals deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly.
[10] It is ordered that the total amount of compensation fixed by the Court is to be deposited by the appellants within four weeks from the date of this order before the concerned Trial Court if it has not been deposited so far and the Trial Court is directed to disburse the amount of compensation as per the judgment as expeditiously as possible. The Registry is directed to draw the decree in terms of this judgment as early as possible.
[M.D.Shah, J.] satish