[1] The present First Appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 r/w. Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the appellants challenging the impugned judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.381/1998 and 1994/1998 dated 19.09.2008 by the Reference Court [learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.6, Bharuch] on the grounds mentioned in the memo of First Appeals.
[2] The facts of the case briefly stated are that the land of the respondent – original claimant situated at Village : Mota Saladara, Taluka : Vagra, District Bharuch was acquired for the purpose of construction of Argama Minor – 1 Naher for Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.307.50 per R.A. as compensation, which has been challenged before the Reference Court by way of claim and the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation after considering the land acquired in other previous Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.37/1996 and 38/1996 of the same village for the same project. The reliance is also made to Reference Case No.2502/1997 by which amount of Rs.46-00 was awarded as compensation by the Reference Court. It is stated that the land in question is in the near vicinity and, therefore, the claim has been made on the same footing as per the award in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.37/1996 and 38/1996 at Ex.35.
[3] Heard learned AGP Mr.P. P. Banaji for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.M. M. Saiyed for the respondent.
[4] Learned AGP Mr.P. P. Banaji for the appellants has referred to the award at Ex.35 and submitted that both the lands are situated in near vicinity and after considering the situation of the lands as well as yield of the lands, on comparable basis, the award has been made. However, it is contended that the Reference Court has failed to consider the oral as well as documentary evidence with regard to the location, potentiality and other comparable sale instances. Learned AGP submitted that the claimant has failed to prove the claim regarding additional compensation and the market value has not been properly considered. It is also stated that the Reference Court has not given any cogent reason as required to be give as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G. M. O.N.G.C. Vs. Sendhabhai Vastram Patel and others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 454.
[5] Learned advocate Mr.M. M. Saiyed for the respondent has referred to the papers and submitted that as discussed in detail with regard to the situation as well as other aspects like yield, potentiality, the award in respect of the land at Ex.35 which has been passed is for similarly situated land and, therefore, the same amount has been ordered which cannot be said to be erroneous. It is submitted that there is also reference with regard to yield which has been discussed in the judgment of the Reference Court, therefore, it cannot be said that there is no evidence.
[6] In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present appeals call for any interference with the impugned award of the Reference Court or not. There is discussion with regard to the yield as well as situation, location etc. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no reason given by the Reference Court as required under the law. Moreover, in light of the discussion made referring to the judgment and award at Ex.35 in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.35/1996 and 38/1996, there is also a discussion made by Reference Court in Reference Case No. 2502/1997 in respect of same adjoining Villages Argam and Saladara where the lands have been acquired for the same purpose and the compensation was awarded as per the judgment and award at Ex.35.
[7] Therefore, considering the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that once should get adequate compensation, the present award cannot be said to be erroneous which would call for any interference.
[8] In the result, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[ RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. ] vijay