IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL NO. 1123 of 2012 With FIRST APPEAL NO. 1124 of 2012 With MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3215 of 2012 In CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10394 of 2012 With MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3216 of 2012 In CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10395 of 2012 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI ================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see theNO judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as toNO the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?
5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO ================================================================ STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 Appellant(s) Versus GANDALAL @ MANJIBHAI KANABHAI BHANDERI Defendant(s) ================================================================ Appearance:
MR VANDAN BAXI, AGP for the Appellants.
MR NITIN M AMIN, ADVOCATE for the Defendant(s) No. 1 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.H.WAGHELA and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI
Date : 20/12/2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.UDHWANI)
1. Aggrieved by the common judgment and award dated 31.8.2010 made by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.1758 of 1999 and 1759 of 1999 enhancing the price of lands to Rs.40/- per Are against Rs.5/- per Are awarded by the Land Acquisition Authority under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, the appellants – State of Gujarat and the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Rehabilitation (Irrigation), Junagadh are before this Court in appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short `the Act’) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Both pieces of land were acquired by virtue of the same notification and for the same purpose.
2. The appellants assailed the impugned award on the ground that the acquiring authority had duly considered the fertility, situation and prevailing market price of the land etc., whereas the claimants did not lead any evidence to establish that they were deriving income of Rs.12.00 lacs per annum from the lands in question, but the Court below, while relying upon the previous Land Reference Cases No.1569/99 to 1571/99 which was challenged before the High Court and was pending for hearing, wherein the award has been stayed, and despite such facts being put to the notice of the Court below, passed the impugned award and enhanced the compensation on the basis of said previous award ( the previous award has now been confirmed in First Appeal No.5307 of 2001 to 5309 of 2001 by this Court (Coram: Jayant Patel & R.M.Chhaya, JJ.) by dismissing the said appeal preferred by the State and the Deputy Collector). It is also argued that in both the cases the claimants are different and therefore the oral evidence of Gandalal @ Manjibhai Kanjibhai Bhanderi in Land Reference Case No.1758 of 1999 could not have been the basis for an evidence of Patel Oghad Nagji in Land Reference Case No.1759 of 1999.
3. As against that, the submissions made by learned counsel for the claimants is that the lands comprised in previous award and the present award being of same village and similar in all respects, the court below did not commit any error in enhancing the compensation by relying upon the previous award. It was submitted that the previous award made by the court below stands until it is set aside. He submitted that, even otherwise there was an ample evidence before the Referral Court, particularly that of Talati-cum-Mantri, himself a Government servant in Revenue Department, of whom the acquiring authority i.e. Collector was the Head of the District. It is submitted that sufficient documentary evidence was produced by the said witness establishing that the land in question was irrigated land and was yielding multiple crops in different seasons.
4. It is not in dispute that lands involved in the previous award and the present one were acquired for the same purpose by Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 24th May, 1993. It is also not in dispute that in the previous Land Acquisition Reference and the present Land Acquisition Reference, the price of the land awarded by the acquiring authority was the same i.e. Rs.500/- per Are for irrigated land, and Rs.400/- per Are for non-irrigated land ( i.e. Rs.5.00/- per sq.mtr and Rs.4.00/- per sq.mtr respectively). Since the acquiring authority awarded same price for two different lands,
compensation in respect of similar lands of the same village has been enhanced, and First Appeals No.1569 of 1999, 1570 of 1999 and 1571 of 1999 arising in respect of such similar lands having been dismissed, enhancement made by the Referral Court in the present cases cannot be said to be unjust or unfair. In fact, for the similar lands, in the previous award the trial court assessed Rs.6,970/- per Are as average agricultural income. However, as the claim was limited i.e. Rs.4,000/- per Are, the same was awarded. It is worthwhile to note that, as in the case of previous award and in the present case as well, Talati-cum-Mantri while relying upon the revenue records, came out with a case in his deposition at Exh.33 that the lands in question were irrigated land and they were yielding crops for the years 1991 to 1994 i.e. immediately prior to the acquisition. He also deposed about the existence of the well, and stated that, even if the well is situated on other adjacent lands, all the lands are treated as irrigated lands as per the revenue records, and that acquired lands were situated on the bank of river Ozat. In the cross-examination, the witness deposed that in the year 1988-1989 Gandalal Kana had grown groundnut in monsoon season and wheat in winter season. Similar was the case in the year 1989-1990. Like in the case of previous award, there was an evidence before the court below showing yield of at least two crops in a year from the land in question.
5. Having considered the case in the previous award, as confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No.5307 of 2001 to 5309 of 2001 and also having gone through the impugned judgment and award, we are of the opinion that the lands in question being similar in all respects and also having been treated as similar by the acquiring authority itself by assessing the same price as in the previous award, the award of compensation by the court below is just and proper and requires no interference at the hands of this Court.
6. In the result, both these appeals must fail and are dismissed in limine.
7. Misc. Civil Applications are also disposed of with a direction to transmit the deposited amount to the Referral Court for being disbursed to the claimants in accordance with law.
(D.H.WAGHELA, J.) syed/ (G.R.UDHWANI, J.)