[1] The present appeals have been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 r/w. Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court (5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch) dated 17.06.2010 in Land Reference Case Nos.1207/1998 to 1218/2010 (main Land Reference Case No.1207/2010) on the grounds stated in the memo of first appeals.
[2] Heard learned AGP Mr.P. P. Banaji for the appellants and learned advocate Mr.M. M. Saiyed for the respondent.
[3] As it transpires from the record particularly the discussion in the impugned judgment and award in Land Reference Case No.1207/2010 that the acquisition of the land in question has been made for the project of Sardar Sarovar and Narmada Minor Canal for which the notification has been issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 18.05.1996 and the notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act has been issued on 06.02.1997. The Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the relevant material, has passed an award for Rs.300/- per Are. Therefore, the aforesaid references have been filed by the claimant before the Reference Court for additional compensation. The Reference Court on the basis of the material evidence on record and after considering the relevant aspects including criteria for deciding the value or the compensation, has considered the situation of the land, quality of fertility, yield as well as the comparative award made in respect of other nearby lands of Villages : Vachhnar, Sudi etc. by impugned judgment and award, has awarded for additional compensation of Rs.60/- per square meters based on the value of the land and the award made in case of Village : Sudi for which the award has been produced at Ex.42.
[4] Learned AGP Mr.P. P. Banaji has tried to submit that the claimants have failed in discharging burden of proof with regard to the yield of the land as well as the fact that it is similarly situated like other lands. He submitted that the Reference Court has discussed with regard to Village : Vachhnar and subsequently the Reference Court has made a reference to the acquisition of the land of Village : Sudi relying on the award passed in case of land acquired at Ex.42, and has made award in respect of the land in question of Village : Vachhnar. He has referred to the papers and discussions made in the impugned judgment and award and submitted that the enhancement made, is not justified, considering the fact that Village : Sudi is adjacent to road whereas the land in question of Village : Vachhnar is interior and it is not developed. Therefore, considering the potentiality of the development also, the enhancement should not be made to the tune of Rs.60 per square meter which is on higher side.
[5] Learned advocate Mr.M. M. Saiyed for the respondent has submitted that the Reference Court has considered all the relevant aspects with regard to the well accepted criteria for deciding the market value of the land like situation / location, yield and the value of the land in vicinity. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the Reference Court has taken detailed examination of the comparative land and the situation of the land in question of Village : Vachhnar and has considered that the Village : Vachhnar is a Taluka place with other facilities and there is development and, therefore, it has not considered the value of the land of Village: Vachhnar, but has referred to the value of the land of Village : Sudi which is adjacent to the land in question of Village : Vachhnar. Therefore, considering the award passed in Land Reference Case of Village : Sudi, the award has been passed after considering the time gap for which according to the settled principles, 10% increase has been added in respect of the difference in the years of notification observing that the land in question has been acquired subsequently i.e. 2 years, 11 months and 14 days. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that for the purpose of deciding the market value, the Reference Court has considered only 2 years and again it has reduced the amount by making a note that the land in question of Village : Vachhnar is situated in internal part whereas the land of Village : Sudi is situated adjacent to the road. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the impugned judgment and award is just and proper and present appeals may not be entertained.
[6] In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be submitted whether the present First Appeals can be entertained or not.
[7] As stated earlier, notice has been issued and after considering the rival submissions, it is evident from the material evidence that the Reference Court has considered in detail the relevant aspects of the location / situation of the land yield and also market value of the land in the nearby vicinity and observed that it is not comparable as it is a Taluka place. Similarly, it has referred to and relied upon the award at Ex.42 in respect of the land acquired of Village: Sudi which is adjacent to land in question of Village : Vachhnar. Therefore, after considering the relevant aspects and also time gap as referred and discussed in detailed with regard to the market value of the land in question which cannot be said to be erroneous on higher side. In fact, it has also been noted and rightly submitted that instead of 3 years, it has been considered for 2 years for the purpose of enhancement and since it has been stated in the interior part the amount has been further reduced as compared to Village : Sudi. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and material evidence which has been referred to and discussed in detail, this Court is not inclined to interfere with in the present first appeals as the Court is in complete agreement with the findings and the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Reference Court which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the first appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly stand dismissed.
[ RAJESH H. SHUKLA, J. ] vijay