The present First Appeals have been filed under sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, being aggrieved with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court (learned Principal Senior Civil judge, Bharuch) in Land Reference Case Nos. 659 of 2001 to 670 of 2001 (main L.A.R. No. 659/2001) dated 27.3.2009. 2. Heard learned AGP Mr. Banaji for the appellants-State and learned advocate Mr. KM Sheth for the respondents-claimants.
3. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case Nos. 659 of 2001 to 670 of 2001 (main L.A.R. No. 659/2001) awarding additional compensation of Rs. 37.50 subject to further addition of 10% for the two years and 9 months which would come to Rs. 47.81 per sq.mt. An amount of Rs. 5.50 per sq.mt. which has already been awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is required to be deducted, and after deducting the same from Rs. 47.81, the net award would come to Rs. 42.31 per sq.mt as the additional compensation.
4. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the lands of the respondents original claimants of Village Karjan, Tal. & Dist. Bharuch have been acquired for the purpose of construction of Zadeshwar Sub-mines Canal under the Narmada Project. The notifications under sec. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') have been issued on 30.10.1997 and 3.9.1998, respectively. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award under sec. 11 of the Act awarding Rs. 5.50 per sq.mt. for the price of the acquired land. The respondents original claimants have therefore filed the Reference under sec. 18 of the Act before the Reference Court which has, on the basis of the material and evidence, passed the impugned judgment and award for additional compensation which is the subject-matter of the present appeals.
5. Learned AGP Mr. Banaji has made the submission that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the material and evidence on record. He submitted that it has failed to appreciate that the land Acquisition Officer has made the award after taking into consideration all relevant aspects and therefore when comparable sale instances of the near vicinity are available on record, the same was required to be taken into consideration. He therefore submitted that the judgment and award is erroneous and requires to be set aside.
6. Further, learned AGP Mr. Banaji has stated that the court below has erred in placing reliance upon the previous award instead of placing reliance on the comparable sale instances of the land in near vicinity. He therefore submitted that the court below ought to have appreciated that the claimants had failed to produce documentary evidence with regard to the additional compensation and the claimants have failed to discharge the burden for the enhanced compensation.
7. Learned advocate Mr. KM Sheth, however, submitted that the impugned judgment and award made by the Reference Court is just and proper as it has discussed and referred to all the relevant aspects like the nature of lands, yield as well as the previous award which has been made in respect of the lands acquired of the same village Karjan. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth submitted that the previous award in respect of the land of the same village was carried by way of appeal before this Court in First Appeal Nos. 3964 of 2009 to 3971 of 2009 and this Court (Coram: H.K. Rathod, J.), vide judgment and order dated 7.10.2009, has declined to entertain the appeals preferred by the State and therefore on the same consideration, the present appeals may not be entertained.
8. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth pointedly referred to the observations made in the order passed in First Appeal Nos. 3964 of 2009 to 3971 of 2009 dated 7.10.2009 in support of his submission for enhanced compensation. He referred to the observations that this Court has considered in detail various aspects with regard to the compensation which has been arrived at and he has also submitted that the report of the District Valuation Committee was considered in the previous award which has also been approved by this Court. He submitted that Village Karjan is in near vicinity of areas where there is industrial development where GNFC unit is also established. He has therefore submitted that the present appeals may not be entertained.
9. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present appeals can be entertained or not.
10. As could be seen from the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court, the Reference Court has discussed in detail the relevant criteria/aspects like nature of land, situation of the land, the prospects of development etc. The court below has also referred to the judgment in LAR No. 42/97 of the same village Karjan and it was the subject-matter of further appeal before this Court by way of First Appeal Nos. 3964 of 2009 to 3971 of 2009. This Court, after considering the submissions, has clearly found that the land in question of village Karjan in the previous award was near National Highway and at the near vicinity of Bharuch city and therefore has considered that the enhancement was justified. It had also taken into consideration the report of the District Valuation Committee as well as the yield of the land acquired of village Karjan while arriving at the market value. In the facts of the case also the court below has clearly observed that the award already passed in respect of the land of the same village or adjoining land could be considered as comparable sale instance and the award passed by the Reference Court in similarly situated land must be taken into consideration for assessing the market value of the land.
11. In the present Reference, the claimants have relied upon the judgment of the same village Karjan bearing LAR No. 42/97 at exh. 16 dated 29.10.91 by the Court of 6th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Bharuch. There is also a reference to other judgment of the same village Karjan bearing LAR No. 647/99 produced at exh. 44 which is of 2008. The said judgment and award in LAR No. 647/99 at exh. 44 was also a subject-matter of appeal before this Court in First Appeal St. No.79/2010 to 87/2010 and the appeals have bean dismissed. The Reference Court has, therefore, come to the conclusion that Rs. 37.50 per sq.mt. would be the just compensation in light of the previous award referred to hereinabove exh. 16 and exh. 44 which have been confirmed in appeal by this Court also. Thereafter the Reference Court has added 10% increase on Rs. 37.50 per year. The Reference Court has also considered that the notification in case of the previous award at exh. 44 and the notification in the present case is having a difference of 2 years and 9 months and therefore has added 10% and observed that the claimants would be entitled to Rs. 47.81 per sq.mt. Out of the same, Rs. 5.50 awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer has been deducted and it would come to Rs. 42.31 per sq.mt. as additional compensation It is also discussed relying upon the earlier judgment of this court with regard to such addition which cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse.
12. Therefore, considering the aforesaid relevant aspects, the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court cannot be said to be erroneous which would call for any interference in the present appeals. Moreover, except the claim in First Appeal No. 1384 of 2012, the claim in all the aforesaid First Appeals are of a smaller value of less than Rs. 1 lakh.
13. Therefore, the present first appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) (hn)