1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr.K. M. Sheth, waives service of notice of admission for the respondent.
2. The present First Appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court [Additional District Judge, Fats Track Court No.6, Bharuch] dated 11.04.2008 in Land Reference Case Nos.988/2001 to 997/2001 [main Land Reference Case No.997/2001] on the grounds stated in the appeals.
3. Heard learned AGP Mr.P. P. Banaji for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.K. M. Sheth for the respondent.
4. Learned AGP for the appellants has referred to the impugned order passed by the Reference Court stating that the land has been acquired of Village : Mangrol for the purpose of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Yojna (Mangrol-2) for irrigating canal. The notification dated 21.11.1998 was issued under Section 4 of the Act and the notification dated 19.05.1999 under Section 6 of the Act was issued, thereafter. The award under Section 11 of the Act was declared by the Land Acquisition Officer awarding Rs.2.10 paise per square meter. Therefore, the same was challenged by way of references before the Reference Court. The Reference Court on the basis of the material evidence and also considering the relevant criteria / aspect like the market value of the surrounding land which is situated nearby the sale instances, the yield etc., has enhanced the award to Rs.46/- per square meter. The Reference Court has also referred to the judgment in the earlier Land Reference Case No.990/2001 and the Reference Court had awarded Rs.40/- which has been carried before the High Court and the High Court has declined to interfere with the said award. Therefore, taking into consideration of all these relevant aspects, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.46/- per square meter. In the present case, on the basis of the earlier award, the compensation has been awarded adding 10% for each year. Therefore, the amount of Rs.46/- has been made which is just and proper.
5. Learned AGP referred to the grounds mentioned in the appeals and submitted that the Court below has committed an error in awarding compensation without appreciating relevant aspects like location, potentiality, the quality of fertility of the acquired lands, and also the development of the area. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation, which is just and proper. It is contended that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the burden was upon the claimants to prove their claims and the claimants have failed in discharging their burden of proof. It was submitted that the Reference Court has made award only relying upon the previous award which is not proper. It is submitted that relying upon the previous award, the Reference Court ought to have gone into the very basic material or root for arriving at the market price determined and only thereafter, could have been decided the market price of the lands in question. He submitted that amount has been awarded based on the previous award is erroneous and is on higher side and therefore the present appeals may be allowed.
6. Learned advocate for the respondent has referred to the material evidence as well as the order of the Reference Court and submitted that the Reference Court has considered the details including the previous award, market value and the surrounding lands situated nearby and also the order passed by the High Court in First Appeal Nos.5328/1999 to 5366/1999 as well as the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal Nos.7570/2001 to 7578/2001. In support of his submission, the learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the order which has been passed in respect of Village : Rojatankaria has been confirmed by the High Court. He has submitted that the average croup and the yield also has been considered and after considering the relevant criteria, the award has been made relying upon the another Land Reference Case No.990/2001 which cannot be said to be erroneous. Even award was carried before the High Court, but High Court has declined to interfere with. In view of these circumstances, the learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the present appeals may not be entertained. Learned advocate for the respondent referred to and relied upon judgment and order in First Appeal No.3917/2009 to 3932/2009 dated 01.10.2009 [Coram: H. K. Rathod, J.] that in respect of the acquisition of the lands of the same village for the same purpose. Therefore, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the present appeals may not be entertained.
7. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be submitted whether the present First Appeals can be entertained or not.
8. The submissions which have been made by the learned AGP referring to the fact that the award is mainly based on the previous award in Land Reference Case No.990/2001 cannot be readily accepted as the impugned judgment and award refers to the earlier litigation in the High Court with regard to the land acquired of Village : Rojatankaria. There is a reference to First Appeal Nos.3917/2009 to 3932/2009 which is produced at Ex.20 and also the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal Nos.7570/2001 to 7578/2001 at Ex.21. Further, it has also considered the previous award in Land Reference Case No.997/2001 regarding the land acquired of the same village for the same purpose. Learned advocate has made a reference to the order of this Court in First Appeal Nos.3917/2009 to 3932/2009. There is no dispute that the land acquired in the present group of appeals is of the same village and for the same purpose as referred to in the judgment and order rendered in First Appeal Nos.3917/2009 to 3932/2009 by this Court [Coram: H. K. Rathod,J.]. The Reference Court has also discussed about the market value and development of the surrounding land, yield or crops and another criteria including the irrigation facilities etc. and it has also referred to the potential development. On the basis thereof has arrived at the conclusion for awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.46/- which cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. Therefore, considering the entire material evidence on record, this Court is in complete agreement with the findings and conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court which does not call for any interference and hence, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed.
9. The present First Appeals stand dismissed. Record and Proceedings if any is ordered to be sent back to the Reference Court for further progress. No order as to costs.
[ RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. ] vijay