1. The present First Appeals have been filed by the Appellant – State under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 125 of 2004, 129 of 2004, 139 of 2004 and 140 of 2004 respectively dated 9.11.2009 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Godhra, Panchmahal on the grounds set out in the memo of First Appeals.
2. Heard learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval for the Appellants and learned Advocate Mr. Vijay Raval for the Respondents – Original Claimants.
3. Learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval for the Appellants has referred to the papers and also the impugned judgment and order and tried to submit that as there is no evidence with regard to the yield of the land or the fact that the land of village Velanwada, which is situated nearby the land in question of village Khatva is similarly situated, the impugned judgment and order awarding Rs.98/- per sq. meter as additional compensation is erroneous.
He has also submitted referring to the observations made in this judgment that the Court below has not considered the relevant aspects like - potential development, nature of the land, yield, etc. He submitted that the learned Judge before relying upon the previous award ought to have gone into the root of the matter and thereafter market value could be determined. Learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval has also submitted that the pre-conditions for drawing the analogy on the basis of previous award have to be fulfilled, which have not been fulfilled, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order is erroneous. He has also submitted that the Court below has failed to appreciate that the claimants have failed in discharging their duty of burden of proof though the liberty was provided, and therefore, the award of Rs.98/- per sq. meter as additional compensation without any evidence is erroneous. He submitted that the land of village Velanwada cannot have been compared with the land of village Khatva and therefore the present First Appeals may be allowed.
4. Learned Advocate Mr. Vijay Raval for the Respondents – Original Claimants submitted that both the villages - Velanwada and Khatva are situated at a distance of 1 ½ kmts. and the land has been acquired for the same purpose of the Kadana River Bank Minor Canal and therefore the Reference Court on appreciation of material and evidence, potential development, nature of land, yield, and having found that the land is agricultural land and fertile, has passed the award relying upon the previous award, which cannot be said to be erroneous. He submitted that this Hon'ble Court has in a judgment reported in case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Vadodara & Anr. v. Ramanbhai Haribhai & Anr., 2001 (3) GLH 655 has also made the observations observing that the distance between the two villages cannot by itself sufficient to deny the claim of the claimant unless evidence is led in that behalf to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior. He has therefore submitted that considering all the material and evidence, the order has been passed, which is just and proper.
5. In view of this rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether impugned judgment and order calls for any interference in the present First Appeals.
6. It is evident from the discussion in the impugned judgment that village Velanwada and Khatva are situated just at a distance of 1 ½ kmts. The land has been acquired for the same purpose of Kadana River Bank Minor Canal and from both the villages, the land is Jarayat and there is a previous award in respect of the land of village Velanwada. The land in question of village Khatva is in the near vicinity and having the same quality of Jarayat land with the yield, for which the deposition has been given by the respective claimants. Even though the deposition has been given, there is a lack of sufficient material and evidence for the yield or the productivity of the land. The Reference Court sliced down the compensation on this count when it has been specifically observed that in view of the difference in date of Notification under Section 4 and lack of evidence pertaining to the annual income of the claimants, the amount of compensation has been decided at Rs.98/- per sq. meter instead of Rs.147/- per sq. meter awarded in case of the land acquired for the same project of village Velanwada. Therefore, the Reference Court has consciously considered all the relevant criteria or the aspects while deciding the market value for the purpose of compensation. The Reference Court has considered the nature of the land, the yield and also the previous award in respect of the land in near vicinity of village Velanwada and also the potentiality of development.
7. Though learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval has stated that the land in question of village Khatva is different and there is no development or potentiality for the development, he has not been able to point out any such difference between the two lands of village Khatva and Velanwada. Admittedly, both the lands are jarayat lands and are fertile lands, for which there is a yield. May be a detailed evidence with regard to the exact yield has not been placed on record by the claimants, but that by itself would not dis-entitle the claimants from getting additional compensation when otherwise in every respect they are similar. It is required to be considered that the land of the person has been acquired for public purpose and even though the person may not have absolute fundamental right, nevertheless right to property is a valuable right as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
8. 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.
9. It is in these circumstances, 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.
10. All the Civil Applications also stands disposed of accordingly.
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J) Jayanti*