(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) 1. Admit. Learned Advocate Mr. NR Desai for learned Advocate Mr. PP Majmudar waives notice of admission for the original claimants. He further states that the respondents – original claimants are not desirous to prefer any cross appeal for enhancement of the compensation. As all the appeals arise from the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, they are being considered simultaneously.
2. Present appeals are directed against the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAR No. 1382 to 1398 of 1997 whereby the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation of Rs.101.92 per square meter plus statutory benefits under section 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (herein after referred to as “the Act”). It may be recorded that the present appeals are restricted to judgment and award in so far as it relates to Land Acquisition Reference No. 1396/97, 1384/97, 1385/97, 1388/97, 1393/97, 1394/97, 1395/97, 1397/97 and 1398/97.
3. Short facts are that the land at village Bharthana, Taluka District Bharuch were to be acquired for the project of Dayadra Distributory Branch of Canal of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited under the Act. Notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 9.2.1995. Notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 13.6.96. Award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 9.1.1997 and he awarded compensation at Rs.7.05 ps. per square meter to the owners of the land. Since the owners of the land were not satisfied with the compensation, they raised dispute under section 18 of the Act and demanded compensation of Rs.250.00 per square meter. Such disputes were referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being LRC No. 1382 of 1997 to 1398 of 1997. Reference Court at the conclusion of the references, passed aforesaid judgment and award. As recorded earlier, it is in respect of Land Acquisition Reference No. 1396/97, 1384/97, 1385/97, 1388/97, 1393/97, 1394/97, 1395/97, 1397/97 and 1398/97, present appeals are before this Court.
4. We have heard learned A.G.P. Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. Desai for learned Advocate Mr. Majmudar for the respondents original claimants. We have considered the judgment and reasons recorded by the Reference Court.
5. Perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court shows that the Reference Court has mainly relied upon its earlier decision for acquisition of land at village Zanor and determined the compensation for the lands in question. As recorded in the judgment, for the acquisition of the lands at village Zanor for the Power Electricity Company in the year 1991, when the acquisition was made, the concerned Reference awarded compensation assessing the market value at Rs.125.00 per square meter. It appears that the Reference Court thereafter made deduction of 40% towards the distinction of the nature of acquisition namely for private company making profit and for irrigation purpose of canal. Learned A.G.P. has made available to the Court for perusal the map of Bharuch Taluka which shows that village Zanor is adjacent to village Bharthana at which the lands in question are located. Boundaries of both the villages are touching each other. Under these circumstances, if the reliance is placed upon the compensation awarded for the lands located at the adjoining village Zanor, it cannot be said to be an error on the part of the Reference Court. Further, the acquisition at village Zanor was in the year 1991 for the project of the Power Electricity Company and thereafter, there would be development in the village Zanor itself on account of the project. As against same, so far as village Bharthana is concerned, it has not come on record that there was any specific development like establishment of an industry or otherwise. Under the circumstances,40% deduction towards the development factor between the lands at village Zanor and village Bharthana as made by the Reference Court could also not be said as erroneous approach on the part of the Reference Court. However, we notice the fact that while considering the appreciation at the rate of 10% per annum, the Reference Court has committed an error in as much as it has given cumulative effect at the rate of 10% per annum as against the simple increase of 10% per annum. If the amount of Rs.75.00 is taken as the basis, time gap between the acquisition of the lands at village Zanor was in the year 1991 whereas in the present case is 1995, therefore, roughly it can be said as the difference of four years. If
be required to be added for time gap of four years and the resultant amount would come to Rs.105.00 per square meter being the market value of the lands under acquisition. Out of the aforesaid amount, Rs.7.05 is already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, therefore,
square meter and if the said figure is rounded off, it would be Rs.98.00 per square meter. As against the same, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.101.92 paisa as additional compensation per square meter. Under the circumstances, the award of the Reference Court needs to be modified to the aforesaid extent only. We may record that it is not the case of the appellant in the present matter that the award passed by the Reference Court for the acquisition of the lands at village Zanor is challenged or carried further before the higher forum nor it is the case that the higher forum known to law has reduced the amount of compensation fixed for the acquisition of the lands at village Zanor, therefore, we find that the approach of the Reference Court for putting reliance upon the judgment of the other Reference Court for acquisition of lands at village Zanor could not be said to be as erroneous.
6. Other benefits granted by the Reference Court of increase in the value at 12% per annum and solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent year are by way of statutory consequence and, therefore, no interference is called for.
7. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, it is held that the claimants would be entitled to the additional compensation of Rs.98.00 per square meter. Further, the claimants shall also be entitled to increase at the rate of 12% per annum under section 23(1-A) and solatium at the rate of 30% as per section 23(2) and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent tears as per section 28 of the Act until the amount is paid or deposited in the Court. Appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
(Jayant Patel,J.) (C.L. Soni,J.) an vyas