The present First Appeal has been filed by the Appellants-State challenging the impugned award in Reference Case No.305 of 1998 passed by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar dated 31st July, 2009 on the grounds memo of Appeal. It is contended inter alia that the learned judge has erred in awarding additional compensation on the higher side over and above the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is also contended that the market price prevailing at the time of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act has to be considered. It is, therefore also, contended that the learned judge ought to have gone into the details for the purpose of relying upon the previous awarded and ascertaining the similarity and nature of the land. Therefore, it is contended that this judgment and award awarding additional compensation to the tune of Rs.115 per Sq.Mtr. (Rs.124 minus Rs.9 as per award) is erroneous.
Heard learned AGP Mr.P.P. Banaji for the appellants-State and learned counsel, Mr.Yatin Soni for the respondent-original claimant.
Learned AGP Mr.Banaji has referred to the impugned award to emphasize the submission that whether the acquired land had the same fertility as the land of Village : Chiloda, which is considered referring to Exh.21, has not been discussed nor it has been specifically considered. Learned AGP Mr.Banaji has also submitted that there is no evidence with regard to the yield as well as other circumstances that the land in question is similarly situated. He further submitted that the award could be made on the basis of the market value when the notice was issued under Section 4 of the Act and not on the basis of market value that may have been fixed subsequently. He has also submitted that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court may have to apply depending on the facts of the case. However, he submitted that without considering other comparable instances and other factors like nature of land, yield, what were the agricultural produce etc., it cannot be compared with other land. He has also stated that comparable instances have to be considered after considering whether the land is comparable to other instances, which has been relied upon for the purpose of award. He, therefore, submitted that as the Court below has not considered these aspects, the award is erroneous and the present Appeal may be allowed.
Learned counsel, Mr.Soni for the original claimant has, however, submitted that the lands are identical and the land situated in Village : Chiloda, which have been acquired for the same purpose, was in the year 1983 and the land in the present case is acquired in the year 1996, after 13 years. He further submitted that while awarding additional compensation, the learned judge has relied upon the judgment reported in case of 2nd Additional Sp. Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Rukhiben, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 577.
In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present First Appeal can be entertained or not.
As could be seen from the discussion in the impugned award, there is no dispute that the originally amount awarded was Rs.9/- only, thereafter, for adjoining land of Village : Chiloda acquired for the same purpose, award was made for Rs.51/- per Sq.Mtr. as per judgment and award at Exh.21. The said acquisition of the land of Chiloda was in the year 1983, whereas the notice under Section 4 in the present case has been issued on 07.03.1996, therefore, the Court below has taken the basis of compensation @ Rs.54/- per Sq.Mtrs. to arrive at fair market value and, thereafter, has proceeded to consider 10% increase relying upon the aforesaid judgment in case of 2nd Additional Sp. Land Acquisition Officer (supra). The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the formula as to how the different market value could be arrived at. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also observed referring to the earlier judgment with regard to the principles for the grant of such additional compensation under Section 23 of the Act. It is not in dispute that notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued for the present case in the year 1996 and, therefore, if the value of the land of the adjoining village acquired in 1983 is fixed at Rs.51/- then, there is no error if the value is taken at Rs.54/- per Sq.Mtrs. in the present case as a basis. It is in this circumstances, having regard to the over all facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the impugned award is erroneous or contrary to the material and evidence.
The submission of learned AGP that it has not considered the yield and other aspect is also misconceived in as much as the land of Chiloda is adjoining and acquired for the same purpose. Therefore, without any further elaboration, the present First Appeal cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed in limine and accordingly stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) /patil Top