(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL) Admit.
Mr.Sheth, learned Counsel appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the original claimants and he also declares that the claimants are not desirous to file any cross-objection. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today.
The short facts of the case appear to be that for the purpose of the pipe-line for Narmada Canal Project the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter refered to as the 'Act') was published on 19.7.1997 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 9.7.1998. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after hearing the claimants, awarded compensation at Rs.58.50 per running meter. The claimants were dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, the dispute was raised, which ultimately came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication. The claimants prayed for additional compensation at Rs.300 per running meter. The Reference Court ultimately awarded the additional compensation at Rs.26.30 per running meter by the impugned judgement and award. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before this Court.
We have heard Mr.Nanavati, learned AGP for the appellants and Mr.Sheth, learned Counsel for the original claimants.
The only question to be considered in the present appeals is the permissible appreciation than the rates prescribed by way of SOR, which is considered as a basis by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
It appears that as per the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, he has ascertained the compensation at Rs.58.50 on the basis of the SOR rate fixed in the year 1993-94, whereas the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present case has been published on 19.7.1997, meaning thereby, there is a difference of three years later than the SOR rate fixed in the year 1993-94. As such, on the said aspect of gap of three years, there is no dispute. The contention of the learned AGP for the appellants is that without there being any material on record, the Reference Court has awarded 15% by way of increase in the rate every year and it has also been contended that there was deposition of only one of the claimants before the Reference Court and the other claimants did not depose at all for the damage caused to them. Therefore, it was submitted that the error has been committed by the Reference Court, which may be interfered with.
Whereas on behalf of the original claimants, it was submitted that, in any case, the claimant would be entitled for 10% rise than the rates fixed in the year 1993-94 per year and it was submitted that since there was damage, the compensation was awarded to each of the claimants. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that merely because no evidence was given by way of deposition of the other claimants, the other claimants would not be entitled for compensation.
It is not a case where the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not awarded any compensation. Therefore, when the pipe-line is laid down for the Narmada Canal Project, there is deprivation of the use of the land as well as damage to the land and the same was found by the Special Land Acquisition officer and the compensation was also awarded by him to each of the claimants/Land Owners of Rs.58.50 per running meter. The aspect, which was required to be considered by the Reference Court and rightly considered by the Reference Court was as to whether the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer could be said as just and reasonable. Therefore, in our opinion, merely because the other claimants did not enter the witness-box would hardly make any difference, so far as the appreciation to be made available in the rates than the rates fixed in the year 1993-94.
It is by now settled in land acquisition matters that every year 10% rise by way of appreciation is to be considered in the assessment of the market price of the land and such can equally apply to the rates of the material also. The learned Judge has calculated at the rate of 15% per year, which appears to be erroneous and it was required for him to consider only 10% rise by way of appreciation. If the rates are fixed in the year 1993-94 and the Special Acquisition Officer has, based on such rates, awarded compensation of Rs.58.50, the Reference Court was well within its power to consider increase in the price but it could not be exceeding 10%. If the amount of 10% is considered per year as there is difference of three years, such amount would come to Rs.17.55 and the figure is rounded of, it would come to Rs.18/- per running meter.
The examination of the judgement of the Reference Court in light of the aforesaid observations shows that the Reference Court has awarded Rs.26.32 based on the consideration that there will be appreciation or the rise in the price at the rate of 15% per year. Therefore, the view taken by the Reference Court for considering the appreciation exceeding 10% per year cannot be sustained. In the result, the claimants would be entitled to the additional compensation of Rs.18/- per running meter.
The other consequential statutory benefits awarded by the Reference Court are not interfered with.
The appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. Decree accordingly.
(Jayant Patel, J.) (H.
B. Antani, J.) vinod Top