1. The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 by the Appellants – Original Opponents being aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Reference Court, i.e. learned Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court, Bharuch in Land Reference Case No. 489 to 492 of 2000 (main LR Case No. 489 of 2000) on the grounds set out in the memo of Appeal, inter alia that the Reference Court has erred in appreciating the material and evidence and has failed to consider the aspect of quality and fertility of the land as well as development of the area. It is also contended that the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration the market price prevailing at the time of issuance of notification, which has not been appreciated. It is also contended that the court below has failed to take into consideration all the relevant instructions including the sale instances of the last five years and has relied upon the previous award.
2. Heard learned AGP Mr. P.P.Banaji for the Appellants.
3. As it transpires from the impugned judgment and award of the Reference Court, the land of the Opponents has been acquired of village Aamod. All the matters were decided on the basis of evidence recorded in LR Case No. 489 of 2000 in respect of the land which was acquired for the purpose of Bhimpura Blind Minor Canal under the Narmada Project. This acquisition was made after issuance of notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act and it has been registered as Land Acquisition Case No.12 of 1998. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act came to be declared on 17.5.1999, and as the compensation was inadequate and as the Respondents - claimants claimed that the land in question was fertile and agricultural land, they had filed the Reference before the Reference Court. The Reference Court on the basis of material and evidence, after considering the rival submissions partly allowed the Reference and enhanced the compensation vide judgment and order in the aforesaid Reference Case No.498 of 2000 to 492 of 2000 vide judgment and award dated 30.1.2010.
4. It is this judgment and order which has been assailed in the present First Appeal on the grounds as stated above.
5. However, as it transpires from the discussion in the impugned judgment and award, which has been reflected in detail that the Reference Court has taken into consideration all the aspects, including the location and the quality of the land. It is also specifically observed that it was an agricultural land where the crops were grown and it has also taken into consideration the fact that in respect of the other land of the same village Aamod, the previous award was made in Reference Case No.293 of 1999 which was carried by way of Appeal before this Court by filing First Appeal Nos. 2061 of 2009 to 2064 of 2009. However, this Court had declined to interfere as per the judgment and order in the First Appeal at Exh.29. Therefore after considering all these aspects, since the land in question is similarly situated, the Reference Court has passed the judgment and award which cannot be said to be erroneous.
6. This court is in complete agreement with the findings and conclusions arrived at, which does not call for any interference and the present First Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed in limine.
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J) Jayanti*