1. These appeals are filed against the judgment and award dated 31.3.2010 passed by the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Land Reference Case Nos.130 of 2004 to 137 of 2004, whereby the learned Reference Court has awarded Rs.98/- in addition to the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of these appeals are that the lands of the original claimants were acquired for the purpose of constructing Kadana Right Bank Minor Canal. After issuing notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and after affording opportunity of being heard, the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared his award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 5.12.2000 awarding compensation @Rs.80,000/- per hectare for jarayat lands whereas @Rs.95,000/- per hectare for kyari lands. Being aggrieved by the said award, the original claimants preferred the above referred Land Reference Cases before the Reference Court, whereby the Reference Court passed the judgment and award as mentioned hereinabove, which is challenged in these appeals.
3. Heard learned AGP for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Raval for the opponents-original claimants.
4. Learned AGP Mr.Banaji submits that the award passed by the Reference Court is on the higher side and therefore these appeals be allowed and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer be confirmed as it is just and proper.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Raval relied on the judgment and order passed in First Appeals Nos.1095 of 2012 with allied matters, wherein the appeals were dismissed by this Court and the award passed by the Reference Court was confirmed. He submits that the lands acquired in the present case are situated at a distance of 1 ½ kms from the lands which were acquired in the above mentioned first appeals and both were acquired for the same purpose. Therefore, these appeals are also required to be dismissed.
5. On perusing the judgment relied upon by learned advocate Mr.Raval, it seems that the same is in respect of lands situated at village Khatva and the lands in the present case are that of village Velanwada which is situated at a distance of 1 ½ kms from village Khatva. That lands of both the villages are acquired for the same purpose i.e. for Kadana River Bank Minor Canal and the lands of both the villages are fertile lands for which there is a yield.
6. Further, the Reference Court has also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Gurlingappa and Ors. V. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Gulbarg, 1997(3) SCC 627 wherein also it has been clearly observed that while determining the market value of the land for compensation, the compensation paid for the lands acquired in the neighbourhood can always be considered.
7. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the impugned judgment of the Reference Court is erroneous which would call for any interference in the present First Appeals and the present First Appeals deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stand dismissed.
( M.D.Shah, J ) srilatha