1. The present First Appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Reference Case Nos.
282 of 2007 to 290 of 2007 (Main Land Reference Case No.290 of 2007) on the grounds mentioned in the memo of the First Appeals.
2. Heard learned AGP Mr.P.P. Banaji for the appellantsState and learned Advocate Mr.K.M. Sheth, who appears for the respondents–original claimants.
3. As it transpires from the record with regard to the land reference, the acquisition of the land in question of village : Muler has been made for the same public purpose of Narmada Project and as discussed in the said judgment and award, learned AGP Mr.Banaji has tried to submit that the claimants have failed in discharging burden of proof with regard to the yield of the land as well as other comparable cases. Learned AGP Mr.Banaji submitted that the learned Judge ought to have ascertained whether the appellants have proved that the comparable cases are similar type with the situation of the land as well as the yield. Learned AGP Mr.Banaji has referred to the discussion in the impugned award in the aforesaid Land Reference Case Nos.282 to 290 of 2007.
4. Learned counsel Mr.K.M. Sheth for the claimants submitted that villages including the Village : Muler and other villages of the nearby vicinity like Kesswan as well as Ochhan, the lands were acquired for the Narmada Project. He submitted that the present Appeals have been preferred with regard to the award in respect of the land acquired for the Narmada Project in Village : Muler. However, he submitted that after considering the award, which has been made in respect of other acquired lands of Village : Muler, after considering the yield as well as comparable instances as well as situation of the land, the award has been made @ Rs.53. For that, he referred to the judgment and award passed in Land Reference Case No.276/2007. He submitted that this Court has declined to interfere in the First Appeal challenging the judgment and award passed in Reference Case No.276 of 2011 being First Appeal No.2648 of 2011 with First Appeal No.2649 of 2011. Learned counsel, Mr.Sheth, therefore, submitted that this group of First Appeals is also similarly situated with regard to the same Village : Muler acquired for the same project. He submitted that here considering all aspects including yield and the situation of the land and other comparable instances, the award is for Rs.50.00 and, therefore, the present First Appeals may not be entertained. He has also submitted that the acquisition of the lands of Village : Ochhan was challenged before this Court by way of First Appeal No.2440 of 2011 and the judgment and award passed in the said Reference in that case has been accepted as this Court has declined to interfere with the order. He, therefore, submitted that the amount of compensation awarded @ Rs.50.00 per sq. meter in case of the land of Village : Muler in the present Land Reference Case is just and proper.
5. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be submitted whether the present First Appeals can be entertained or not.
6. As stated earlier, notice has been issued and after considering the rival submissions, the issues involved have been considered while deciding the earlier First Appeal Nos.2648 & 2649 of 2011, which have been challenged by the State challenging the judgment and award in Reference Case No.276 of 2007 on the similar ground in respect of the land of Village : Muler, which has been acquired for the same project. This Court had declined to interfere as per the discussion made in the said judgment and Reference is also made to another acquisition of the land of Village : Ochhan and for the same project, which has already been assailed by way of First Appeal No.2440 of 2011. In First Appeal No.2440 of 2011 also, this Court had declined to interfere with the order regarding the compensation of the amount awarded @ 50 per Sq.Mtrs. There is also reference to other Land Reference Cases of the nearby village. Therefore, having considered the rival submissions and having gone through the documentary evidence and material as also the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned award.
7. In view of the discussions made herein above, considering the judgment and award, which have been referred in the impugned award referring to other villages also, Reference Court has granted Rs.50.00 per Sq.Mtr. as additional compensation, which is just and proper.
8. In the circumstances as discussed above, having regarding to the material and evidence as well as details, this Court is in complete agreement with the findings arrived at and the reasons recorded for the award, which does not call for any interference by this Court.
9. Therefore, the present First Appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
10. The registry is directed to keep a copy of the order in each matter.
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)
/patil