1. Heard Mr.U.A. Trivedi, learned Additional Government Pleader for the applicants and Mr.M.M. Saiyed, learned advocate for the opponents.
2. ADMIT.
3. In view of the joint request by the learned counsel and with the consent of the advocates for the contesting parties, the appeals are taken up for final hearing and decision today.
4. Mr.Saiyed, learned advocate for the opponents waives service of notice of admission/Rule.
5. This group of appeals is directed against an award dated 16.05.2008 passed by the Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court, Bharuch in Land Reference Cases Nos.211/1995 to 222/1995 (main L.A.R. Case No.215/1995) whereby the learned Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.17.70 per sqr. mtrs. Aggrieved by the decision of the award, the appellants have preferred present appeals.
6. The facts giving rise to present appeals can be summarized as follows.
6.1 For the purpose of Narmada Project (Branch Canal) certain parcels of the lands situate in Village: Nahar were required. Hence, the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) was issued on 16th April, 1992 which was followed by Notification under Section 6 dated 01.02.1993, the proceedings before the Land Acquisition Officer were registered as Land Reference Case No.56/1992. Pursuant to the above referred Notification, the Land Acquisition Officer passed the award under Section 11 of the Act on 10th May, 1993 whereby the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.150/-per ARE (Rs.1.50 per sqr. mtrs.) towards compensation. The claimants-owners were aggrieved by the award and claimed that the award was inadequate. The claimants, therefore, submitted application seeking Reference under Section 18 of the Act. The competent authority made reference which culminated into aforesaid Land Reference Cases Nos.211/1995 to 222/1995. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants contended that the award was inadequate and that adequate and reasonable compensation would be Rs.50/- per sqr. mtrs. In support of their claim, the claimants led evidence about the yield claiming, inter-alia, that all claimants were taking crop in all three seasons. The lands in question were very fertile and were invested with irrigation facility. The lands also had very high potential value for agricultural as well as commercial purpose. The claimants submitted that they used to take crops of cotton, various vegetables and also grains. Evidence about the income from the produce were also produced on record. The claimants also placed on record evidence demonstrating that Village Nahar is a very developed village and as the village is having facilities of school, telephone, dairy and all the lands were having irrigation facilities. In backdrop of the aforesaid and other evidence e.g. earlier award etc., the claimants claimed and asserted before the learned Reference Court that they were entitled for compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per sqr. mtrs. and impugned award by the Land Reference Officer was totally inadequate.
7. In addition to the evidence regarding income from yield, the claimants also relied upon an earlier award passed by the learned Reference Court in Land Reference Cases Nos.1052/1999 to 1068/1999. The claimants contended that the said award was passed by the Reference Court in respect of acquisition of lands in adjoining Village: Kavi and that earlier in the said case, lands were acquired for the same purpose. A copy of the said earlier award in the above referred Land Reference Cases Nos.1052/1999 to 1068/1999 was placed on record by the claimants, which was accepted and entered on record at Exh:50.
8. On perusal of the award impugned in present petition it comes out that the learned Reference Court has relied upon said earlier award Exh:50 in determining the rate of additional compensation in present case. The learned Reference Court appears to have taken note of the fact that in the said earlier award dated 30.04.2005, the learned Reference Court had awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.32/- per sqr. mtrs. in respect of the lands situate in Village: Kavi. In the said case, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded Rs.4.90 per sqr. metrs. and the learned Reference Court awarded Rs.32/- per sqr. mtrs. as additional compensation. Consequently, the total amount of compensation determined by the learned Reference Court in the said earlier case was Rs.36.90 per sqr.mtrs. In the said earlier case, the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 24th March, 1996. Though, in the said earlier case, the Notification under Section 4 was issued subsequently, the reference came to be decided earlier and the claimants in present case could rely upon the said award. The learned Reference Court has taken note of the fact that the Notification under Section 4 in present case was issued about four years earlier than in the cited case and that therefore the learned Reference Court has proportionally reduced the rate of compensation by applying the formula of increase/reduction by 10% per year, when earlier award by a Reference Court is relied upon and is made the base for determining the market price.
9. There is no dispute between the parties on any of the aforesaid factual aspect.
10. Relying upon the said earlier award Exh:50, the learned Reference Court in present case determined the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.17.70 which would make the total compensation/market price Rs.19.20 (Rs.17.70 + Rs.1.50). Aggrieved by the said award, the appellants have preferred present appeals.
11. Mr.Trivedi, learned Additional Government Pleader, has submitted that the Reference Court has committed error in relying upon the earlier award Exh:50, which was made in respect of lands acquired in another village namely Village: Kavi. He submitted that the learned Reference Court ought to have independently decided the reference cases instead of relying upon the award in respect of acquisition of lands in another village. Any other submission has not been made.
12. The appeals have been opposed by the claimants represented by Mr.Saiyed, learned advocate, who submitted that the said earlier award Exh:50 in respect of acquisition of lands of Village: Kavi was challenged by present appellants in the High Court by way of First Appeal Nos.1844/2008 to 1860/2008. He further submitted that the appeals preferred by the State Government against the said earlier award Exh:50 has been dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 11.02.2009 and the rate of compensation determined by the learned Reference Court in respect of acquisition of lands in Village: Kavi has been confirmed by this Court. He further submitted that the Village: Kavi is absolutely adjoining to the revenue limits of Village: Nahar and that therefore, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be said that the learned Reference Court committed any error in relying upon the said earlier award Exh:50. Mr.Saiyed further submitted that besides the acquisition of lands by virtue of the earlier reference under Section 4 Notification dated 16.04.1992, certain other parcels of land from the same village i.e. Village Nahar came to be acquired for the same purpose and the claimants had raised dispute against the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in said another group of acquisition. The demand of claimants in said other group of acquisition of the same village had culminated into L.A.R Cases Nos.74/1996 to 99/1996 wherein also the Reference Court had determined additional compensation at the rate of Rs.17.70. Even the said award in L.A.R. Cases Nos.74/1996 to 99/1996 was also challenged in the High Court by way of First Appeal Nos.3778/2009 to 3803/2009 and by the order dated 30.09.2009, the challenge against the award dated 16.05.2008 passed in the said L.A.R Cases Nos.74/1996 to 99/1996 also came to be dismissed by this Court inasmuch as the said First Appeal Nos.3778/2009 to 3803/2009 are dismissed. He submitted that now by virtue of the said order dated 30.09.2009 even the award, in respect of acquisition of lands for the same project and from the same village, has been confirmed by the Court. The rate of compensation awarded in the said earlier award and in the award impugned in present appeal is also the same. In light of such facts, Mr.Saiyed submitted that present appeals do not have merits and deserves to be dismissed.
13. So far as reference with regard to judgment and order dated 11.02.2009 in First Appeal Nos.1844/2008 to 1860/2008 and order dated 30.09.2009 in First Appeal Nos.3778/2009 to 3803/2009 made by learned advocate Mr.Saiyed is concerned, Mr. Trivedi, learned Additional Government Pleader has not been able to dispute or distinguish the said factual position.
14. Thus, it is a matter of fact that in respect of acquisition of lands from the said village, this Court has already approved additional compensation at the rate of Rs.17.70 by the order dated 30.09.2009. It deserves to be noted that in the said case also the learned Reference Court had relied upon the earlier award in respect of the acquisition of lands in adjourning Village: Kavi. It is appropriate to recall at this stage that even the said earlier award, in respect of acquisition of lands in question of Village: Kavi, is also approved by this Court.
15. I have carefully studied orders in First Appeal Nos.1844/2008 to 1860/2008 and First Appeal Nos.3778/2009 to 3803/2009 and I am inclined to agree submission of Mr.Saiyed, learned advocate for the opponents, that the said judgment would be applicable to present cases as well. On factual aspect, learned Additional Government Pleader Mr.Trivedi has, fairly, not disputed the submission made by Mr.Saiyed.
16. In view of the aforesaid subsequent development, the objection by the appellants against the award impugned in present appeals has lost the edge and now, after confirmation of the earlier award Exh:50, the objection does not retain any merits and deserves to be rejected.
17. It is also appropriate to note that the learned Reference Court has, besides referring to and relying upon the said earlier award also taken into account the evidence produced on record by the claimants. It deserves to be noted that the claimants brought on record by examining witness Mr.G.K. Makwana (Exh:55), the evidence regarding crops, the yield and the income from the agricultural produce. The evidence produced by the claimants also demonstrated before the learned Reference Court that the lands acquired under present acquisition were similar, in respect of quality and potential value etc. to the acquired lands, which was subject matter of the earlier award. The said evidence has not been disputed and disproved by the appellants. The learned Reference Court has taken into account the aforesaid aspects and after having noted that the evidence produced by the claimants including the evidence that lands in both cases were comparable and almost adjoining, the learned Reference Court considered it appropriate and relied upon the earlier award. In the facts of the case and in light of the evidence available on record, it is not possible to take any different view to find any fault or error in the decision and conclusion of the learned Reference Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also has not been able to point out any material from the record which could establish that the learned Reference Court has committed any error and/or which could persuade this Court to take different view either in law or evidence on facts. Hence, this Court is inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Saiyed to the effect that when this Court has already approved the award made in respect of acquisition of lands of the same village for same project and when the compensation awarded by the earlier award is same, any interference in present award is not warranted and appeals deserves to be dismissed.
18. On perusal of the said judgments and orders dated 11.02.2009 and 30.09.2009, I am also inclined to hold that the learned Reference Court has not committed any error in relying upon earlier award Exh:50 and/or determining the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.17.70 per sqr.mtrs. making total of Rs.19.20 per sqr. mtrs.
19. The impugned award does not warrant any interference. The appeals fail and the same are rejected in light of the earlier orders dated 11.02.2009 and 30.09.2009. Orders and decree accordingly.
(K.M.
Thaker, J.) rakesh/ Top