1. The present First Appeals have been filed being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the Reference Court [Civil Judge(SD), Bharuch] in Land Reference Case Nos. 383 of 1997 to 397 of 1997 dated 26.3.2009 on the grounds set out in the memo of Appeal inter alia that the court below has failed to appreciate the fact that while considering the market value in respect of the land situated in village Aamod, it has not been considered that the land in question is of the village Adwala, which is not developed, and therefore, it cannot be said to be a comparable instance. He has referred to the observations made in the impugned judgment and order and also referred to the judgment reported in 2007 (2) GLH 1678, Executive Engineer, Narmada Canal Project, Mehsana v. Thakor Pradhanji Sursangji and submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate that the value of irrigated land would be higher. However, there is no evidence with regard to the land in question. He has therefore submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in relying upon the sale instances in respect of the land of village Aamod. Similarly, he has submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the provisions of Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act with regard to the interest, and he emphasized the observations made in the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sunder v. Union of India reported in Supreme Today 2001(7), 37 and submitted that the claimants are entitled under Section 23 of the Act only for the interst @ 12% p.a., and therefore, the additional amount of 30% solatium and interest thereon is not just and present.
2. Heard learned AGP Mr. P.P.Banaji for the Appellants as well as learned Advocate Mr. K.M.Sheth for the Respondent.
3. Learned AGP Mr. Banaji has referred to the impugned judgment and order and made the submissions with regard to the fact that the sale instances of village Aamod could not have been relied upon in respect of the market value of the land of village Adwala. Similarly, he has referred to the rate of interest, referring to Section 23 of the Act and the interest which is payable and submitted that the solatium with further interest should not have been awarded, and therefore the present Appeal may be allowed.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. K.M.Sheth for the Respondent – Original Claimant has pointedly referred to the observations made by the Reference Court in paragraph 26 and submitted that while considering the land of village Adwala and Aamod, the Reference Court was conscious, and therefore, 50% deduction has been made in order to arrive at the market value, which is just and proper. He has referred to the judgment of this court in case of Executive Engineer, Narmada Canal Project, Mehsana v. Thakor Pradhanji Sursangji (supra) and submitted that when the land is irrigated, 25% should be given more, and in the facts of the present case, it was a fertile land, and therefore, the award is just and proper. He further submitted that the interest, which is given is on the amount of compensation and the solatium can be awarded with interest as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, and therefore, the present First Appeal may not be entertained.
5. In view of the rival submissions and having referred to the impugned judgment and order and having considered the fact that the comparable sale instances have been examined and after deducting 50% of the market value of the land of village Aamod, the market value of the land in question of village Adwala is arrived at. Further, 25% has been added due to the irrigation, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order cannot be said to be erroneous. However, at the same time, the notification under Section 4 is of the same year as compared to the land of village Aamod, and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court and the present First Appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed in limine.
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J) Jayanti*