The present first appeals have been filed by the appellants-State being aggrieved with the judgment and award rendered in Land Reference Case Nos. 311 to 322 of 2004 (Main Land Reference Case No. 311/2004) by the learned 3rd Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Himatnagar dated 31.12.2010 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeals, inter alia, that the Reference Court has erred in appreciating the material and evidence on record. It is contended that no evidence was adduced to establish that the claimants had been cultivating the land for all the three seasons. It is also contended that the Reference Court has erred in appreciating the evidence of Vinodbhai Patel at exh. 16 that the village is developed and the land was having the yield in all the three seasons. It is therefore contended that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the claimants have not produced any evidence regarding the income or yield and therefore merely relying on the previous award the Reference Court could not have enhanced the compensation and therefore the appeals may be allowed. 2. Heard learned AGP Mr. Banaji for the appellants. He has referred to the papers including the material and evidence and also the impugned judgment. Learned AGP Mr. Banaji has referred to page 12 of the judgment which is referring to the previous award in Main Land Acquisition Case No. 12/94 in respect of the land of village Pural, Taluka Himatnagar. He has submitted that the land in question is of village Sakrodiya and it is just 2 Kms. away. He submitted that following the previous award in Land Acquisition Case No. 12/84, the Reference Court has proceeded to decide adding 10% per year from 1992 to 2001 which is erroneous. He submitted that, as could be seen from the material and evidence, there is no potential development and it is not a developed area or in vicinity of any urban area with potential for development. He therefore submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and anr., reported in(2008) 14 SCC 745, instead of 10%, 7.5% per year ought to have been added and to that extent the impugned judgment and award is erroneous.
3. Though served, no one has remained present for the respondents-claimants.
4. Therefore, having regard to the relevant facts, the material and evidence on record, and considering the discussion with regard to the previous award, the submissions made by the learned AGP with regard to other contentions that the court below has failed to appreciate the evidence on record or that it has not considered the yield etc. are misconceived and cannot be accepted. However, the submission that instead of 10%, 7.5% rise could have been added per year relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and anr (supra) is required to be considered.
5. It is not in dispute that the land in question of Village Sakrodiya is just 2 Kms away from Pural and on the basis of the previous award in respect of the land acquired of Village Pural, the award has been made. However, that acquisition was in the year 1992 and therefore while adding 10% from 1992 to 2001, the Reference Court has not considered that the land in question is not in the urban area or in the vicinity of urban development and in fact is an agricultural land. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in the case of of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and anr. (supra) has, considering this aspect, made the following observation:
“...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.”
6. In the facts of the case, no such specific evidence has been produced and no specific evidence relating to increase in the price of the land has been produced. Therefore, considering these observations, the addition could have been made at the rate of 7.5% per year instead of 10% to the amount of compensation of Rs. 1750/-.
7. Therefore, the present First Appeals deserve to be allowed partly only on this count that while considering the market value as referred to in the impugned judgment, 7.5% rise should be calculated from 1992 to 2001. Out of this amount, Rs. 550 per Are has already been paid to the appellants and therefore Rs. 3052/- per Are could be fixed for the irrigated land as under:
======= 30.52
8. The appellants are therefore entitled to the compensation to the aforesaid extent along with other statutory benefits as available under the Act. The Award of the Reference Court deserves to be modified to that extent and the present First Appeals stand allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(Rajesh H. Shukla, J.) (hn)