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 impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court (4th Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Patan) in Land Reference Case Nos. 2317 to 2320 of 2006 (Main Land Reference Case No. 2320 of 2006) on the grounds stated in the memo of appeals.
2. It is contended that the Reference Court has committed an error in appreciation of material and evidence and ought to have considered that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the amount after considering the potentiality and fertility of the lands in question. It is also contended that the Reference Court ought to have examined the difference between the lands of two villages before awarding compensation in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1999 SC 317, inter alia, that generally there would be a different situation and potentiality of the lands situated in different villages would vary unless it is proved that the situation and potentiality of the lands of two different villages are the same. It is therefore contended that the Reference Court ought to have compared the nature of lands as well as the potentiality and fertility of the lands of both the villages i.e. village Khorsam and land village Tamboliya for the purpose of deciding the compensation.
3. Heard learned AGP Mr. Banaji for the appellants-
State and learned advocate Mr. Shital Patel for the respondents original claimants.
4. Learned AGP Mr. Banaji referred to the papers and the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court to emphasise that the land of village Khorsam has been acquired after 7 years. He submitted that there is a canal between the acquired land of village Khorsam and village Kamboi. He therefore submitted that the Reference Court has considered that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5912 of 2010, if the land in question is of rural area, the additional compensation at the cumulative rate of 7.5% p.a. could be added and not 10% as claimed. Therefore, Rs. 52.70 per sq.mt. can be awarded and the respondents original claimants have claimed only Rs. 50 per sq.mt.. Therefore, learned AGP Mr. Banaji has submitted that, in fact, as village Khorsam and village Kamboi are different and the land acquired of village Kamboi was subject-matter of LAR No. 991/2006 to 996/2006 and the reliance could have been placed on the said judgment and award of the Reference Court. He has submitted that no appeal has been preferred and, therefore, it has been accepted, which has also been considered by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of deciding the market value. He pointedly referred to the observations made in the judgment of the Reference Court and submitted that, as it is observed, opponent No. 1 Land Acquisition Officer has relied upon the previous award in LAR Nos. 1120/2006 to 1133/2006 in respect of the same village Kamboi and because the appeals are pending it has not been considered.
5. On the other hand, the acquisition of land of village Khorsam was subject-matter in LAR No. 773/2002 to 786/2002 by the District Judge who had awarded Rs. 45 per sq.mt. It is against this judgment and award, First Appeal Nos. 4636 of 2007 to 4649 of 2007 was preferred and this Court had awarded additional compensation of Rs. 26 per sq.mt and the judgment of the court in appeal is produced at exh. 44. He has therefore submitted that the acquisition of land of village Khorsam is subject to further litigation and the appeal is pending in this court and therefore the judgment of the Reference Court in case of the land of village Khorsam cannot be relied upon. He has therefore stated that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is erroneous.
6. Learned Advocate Mr. Shital Patel referred to the papers and material and evidence and tried to submit that in respect of the land of village Khorsam, first appeals have been preferred before this court and additional compensation has been awarded. He submitted that though the appeal is pending, 50% of the amount which has been deposited is permitted to withdrawn and the land in question has been acquired for the canal and for the approach road. He therefore submitted that both the lands of village Kamboi and village Khorsam are similarly situated and the same amount which has been claimed can be considered.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Patel, however, submitted that 10% rise has to be given as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In support of his submission he has referred to and relied upon the judgment in the case of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and anr., reported in (2008) 14 SCC
745. He submitted that as observed in the judgment of the Reference Court, the Reference Court has decided the market value of the land in respect of the land acquired of village Khorsam as well as Kamboi and therefore the impugned judgment and award cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore the present appeals may not be entertained.
7. In view of rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present appeals can be entertain or not.
8. The facts of the case, briefly recorded, are that the lands of the respondent original claimants have been acquired for the Narmada Canal which is situated at village Kamboi. After issuing notices and completing the procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer has made the award which has been challenged by way of reference under the Land Acquisition Act before the Reference Court. Thereafter, the respondents-original claimants have made the grievance that the land was fertile and was giving the yield and therefore considering these aspects the award could have been made. It is therefore submitted that the potential development and actual development in and around the land in question is also required to be considered. It was submitted that schools, hospitals, societies etc. have been set up and the award given by the Land Acquisition Officer is therefore not just and proper. It was contended that as discussed in the judgment of the Reference Court, the Reference Court has considered the market value of the land of village Khorsam as well as of village Kamboi. He pointedly referred to the observations and submitted that, after considering the nature of the land, situation and other relevant factors , the claims is made by the claimants at the rate of Rs. 50 per sq.mt.. Therefore, it was contended that the court has committed a mistake in not accepting 10% as additional compensation and therefore in fact the claimants would have the grievance. It was submitted that in other appeals, the judgment and award of the Reference Court has been accepted and therefore the present appeals may not be allowed.
9. Therefore, in light of the discussion with regard to the reference made by the Reference Court in case of the land acquired of village Khorsam and village Kamboi, which has been a matter appeal, and also considering the situation, the Reference Court has rightly added 7.5% of cumulative rate of interest in respect of the land acquired for the years instead of 10% for every year awarding Rs. 50 per sq.mt..
10. A useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2008) 14 SCC 745 in the case of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and anr., and the Hon'ble Apex Court has, considering various aspects, clearly observed, "...Therefore, if the increase in market value in urban/semi-urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is, about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same."
11. In the facts of the present case, as discussed above, there is no special evidence relating to the actual increase in the price. In fact, from the two different versions which have been discussed in the judgment of the Reference Court referring to the reference proceedings in respect of the land of village Khorsam as well as village Kamboi, the appeals are pending in respect of the land acquired of village Khorsam. It is in this background the Reference Court, relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has added 7.5% which cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court does not call for any interference and the present appeals cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed. However, it requires consideration as regards the rate of interest which is claimed at 15%, and it is required to be modified at 10% instead of 15% from the date of the notification till realisation.
12. The present appeals accordingly stand dismissed with the aforesaid observation and modification to the extent of the rate of interest as stated above. No costs.
(Rajesh H.
Shukla, J.) (hn) Top