1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court – Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Reference Case No. 110 of 2007 to 113 of 2007 (Main Matter – Land Reference Case No.110 of 2007) on the grounds stated in the memo of Appeal inter alia that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the claimants have failed in discharging their burden of proof with regard to the claim. It is also contended that the court below has erred in awarding additional compensation without considering the quality of the land / fertility of the land acquired and also prospect of development. It is therefore contended that the Court below has committed an error while determining the market value of the land acquired based on the comparable sale instances of the same vicinity.
2. Heard learned AGP Mr. P.P.Banaji for the Appellants and learned Advocate Mr. K.M.Sheth for the Opponents / Original Claimants.
3. Learned APP Mr. P.P.Banaji for the Appellants has submitted that the Court below has failed to consider the relevant aspect while deciding the compensation. It was submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the claimants have failed in discharge burden of proof. He submitted that the reliance placed on the previous award should have been examined with reference to the similarity of the land and it was necessary to ascertain about the similarity of the land referred in the previous award and the land in question in the present Reference.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. K.M.Sheth for the Opponents / Claimants has submitted that as discussed in the judgment, the Court below has considered the aspect of yield as well as prospective development including the industrial development in the near vicinity in and around the area. He submitted that the land of village Keshvan has been acquired for Narmada canal at Bharuch District. He submitted that the Reference Court has also referred to the judgment of this High Court in First Appeal Nos. 2475 of 2011 to 2485 of 2011 (Coram: K.S.Jhaveri,J) where the High Court had declined to interfere in respect of the land of the same village Keshvan, which was also acquired for the same purpose of construction of canal in Narmada project. Learned Advocate Mr. Sheth has submitted that even this Court has earlier disposed of First Appeal Nos. 2630 of 2011 to 2642 of 2011 in respect of the acquisition of the land of the same village Keshvan had declined to interfere with the order of the Reference Court. Learned Advocate Mr. Sheth therefore submitted that the present Appeal may not be entertained in view of the two judgments of the High Court in respect of the acquisition of the land of the same village for the same purpose of construction of canal for Narmada project.
5. In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present First Appeal can be entertained or not.
6. As discussed hereinabove, the acquisition of the land in the present case of the same village Keshvan for the same purpose was also a subject matter in earlier litigation before this Court by way of First Appeal Nos. 2475 of 2011 to 2485 of 2011 and the High Court (Coram: K.S.Jhaveri,J) had declined to interfere with the amount awarded by the Reference Court. More over, this Court had also while dealing with the land of the same village Keshvan for the same purpose of construction of canal for Narmada project had the occasion to examine the judgment of the Reference Court in First Appeal Nos. 2630 of 2011 to 2642 of 2011 and on appreciation of material and evidence, the Court had declined to interfere with the order of the Reference Court. Therefore, in the impugned judgment of the Reference Court in both the aforesaid cases, it had considered the relevant criteria / aspects with regard to the assessment of the value of the land based on the quality of the land, yield, prospect of development and the actual development in and around the land in question. The impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court has also referred to these aspects and also there is a specific reference to the projects of ONGC, IOC, etc. Further, there is also reference to the potential development and other infrastructure like the school, hospital and the Post Office, the access to the main centers, and after considering these aspects, the Reference Court has arrived at the conclusion, which cannot be said to be erroneous.
7. Therefore, in light of the fact that earlier ground of litigation with regard to land acquired of the same village for the same purpose, the High Court has declined to interfere while disposing of First Appeal Nos. 2475 of 2011 to 2485 of 2011 and also there is a subsequent order passed by this Court also while disposing of First Appeal No.2630 of 2011 to 2642 of 2011 in respect of the same village Keshvan, the present First Appeal cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J) Jayanti*