1. By filing these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (“the Act” for short) read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the appellants have challenged the legality of common judgment and award dated 29.09.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.129 to 140 of 2003, (Main Land Reference Acquisition Case No.133 of 2003) by which the Reference Court has awarded in all compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.45.30 paise per sq.mtr. as additional amount of compensation.
2. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Project No.17, Bharuch made a proposal to the State Government to acquire lands of Village – Panchkada, Ta. Jambusar, District – Bharuch for the purpose of construction of narmada canal under Narmada project. On perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of Village – Panchkada were likely to be needed for the said purpose. Therefore, Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on 04.02.2002. After considering objections from the claimants, necessary report contemplated under section 5A(2) of the Act was forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the State Government and on considering the said report, Government was satisfied that the land of village – Panchkada were needed for the public purpose as mentioned above.
3. Therefore, declaration was made under Section 6 of the Act, which were published in the Official Gazette on 02.05.2002. Thereafter, Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the present claimants at the rate of Rs.180.00 per Acre. Since the said amount of compensation was inadequate, the claimants submitted application under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Officer to refer their case to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation payable to them and accordingly, reference was made to the Reference Court, Bharuch which was registered as L.R.C. No.129 to 140 of 2003.
4. On behalf of the claimants, Shri Parsottambhai Ranchhodbhai was examined at Exhibit – 23. Over and above stating that the lands acquired were highly fertile and that each claimant was earning substantial income from the sale of the agricultural produces, the said witness produced previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village – Kora at Exhibit – 20 in support of the claim of the claimants for enhanced compensation. The witness further stated in his testimony that the lands of Village – Kora was adjoining village. Against the said award, the Government preferred Appeal being First Appeal Nos.1606 of 2012 to 1614 of 2012 before this Court and same has been confirmed by this Court. It is also stated by witness Shri Parsottambhai Ranchhodbhai that they have produced copy of the judgment of the Reference Court passed in the L.R.C. No.145 to 158 of 2003 wherein the land of village Kora were acquired by the government for the public purpose and in that regard, reference court has awarded amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.47.10 paise per sq.mtrs. in all. The witness examined on behalf of the claimants was crossexamined by the appellants but nothing substantial could be elicited.
5. On behalf of the appellants, it is was submitted that claimants have failed to prove that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and they have failed to prove that the lands under reference and under previous award are not similar and the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is determined after considering several aspects and therefore, the award passed by the officer is proper.
6. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the claimants, the Reference Court was of the opinion that previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village Kora was relevant piece of evidence at Exh .20 and furnished good guidance for the purpose of determining market value of the lands subsequently acquired from this village. After placing reliance on the previous award of the Reference Court, the Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.45.30 paise per sq.mrs. by impugned judgment, giving rise to these appeals.
7. This Court has heard Mr. P.P.Banaji, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants. From the record of the case it is evident that the evidence tendered by witness Pursottambhai Ranchhodbhai at Exhibit–23 was almost allowed to go unchallenged. The record does not indicate that the claimants had claimed enhanced compensation on yield basis or on the basis of comparable sale instances. What was relied upon by the claimants in support of their claim for enhanced compensation was previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village – Kora which was produced at Exhibit – 20. It is admitted fact that against the judgment of village Kora, government has preferred appeal before the higher forum and the said judgment is confirmed by this Court. The previous award of the Reference Court relating to the land of adjoining village which has attained finality can be relied upon as good piece of evidence for the purpose of determining the market value of similar and nearby village. Accordingly, the reference court has relied on the judgment of adjoining village – Kora at Exh.20 and after considering the evidence in detail, came to the conclusion that in case of village Kora, notification under section 4 was issued on 04.02.2002 whereas in the present case, notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 04.02.2002, therefore, there is no need to give increase 10% per year and the reference court awarded Rs.45.30 paise per sq.mtr. On reappreciation of the evidence produced by the claimants, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has recorded correct findings of fact to which settled principle of law have been applied. No error could be pointed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader necessitating interference of this Court with the award impugned in the instant appeals. The learned Assistant Government Pleader could not persuade this Court to take a view different than the one which is taken by the Reference Court on appreciation of evidence. Under the circumstances, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.
8. In view of above, the appeals fail and are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw decree in terms of this order as early as possible.
[M.D.Shah, J.] ynvyas