IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 220 of 2010
To
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 252 of 2010
With
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 273 of 2010
To
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 294 of 2010
With
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 295 of 2010
To
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 324 of 2010
With
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 325 of 2010
To
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No. 359 of 2010
For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH ========================================================= Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
1 to see the judgment ? YES
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
3 of the judgment ? NO Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the
4 constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? NO Whether it is to be circulated to the civil
5 judge ? NO ========================================================= UNION OF INDIA - Applicant(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH DY.COLLECTOR AND ACQUS & 1 -
Opponent(s) =========================================================
COMMON APPEARANCE :
MR PS CHAMPANERI WITH MR ANSHIN DESAI for Petitioner, MR KABIR HATHI ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No.1, MR RAJENDRA GADHAVI for private Respondent/s, MR JIGAR G GADHAVI for private Respondent/s, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
Date : 16/06/2012
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT 1.00. As common question of facts and law arise in this group of Civil Revision Applications, they are disposed of by this common judgement and order.
2.00. Civil Revision Application Nos.188 to 219 of 2010 have been preferred by the petitioner herein - Union of India, through Defence Estate Officer – acquiring body to quash and set aside the impugned common order dtd. 13/8/2010 passed by the learned Executing Court – learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur in Land Reference Execution Application Nos.93/2009 to 124/2009, by which the learned Executing Court has directed the applicant to pay/ deposit balance amount as per the respective Judgement and Awards passed by the learned Reference Court, more particularly directing the acquiring body to pay interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from 25/3/1987, 12/5/1987 and 8/5/1987, respectively and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period considering the dates 7/5/1987, 25/3/1987 and 8/5/1987 respectively, as the date on which the acquiring body took the possession and/or the respective land owners handed over the possession of the acquired land to the acquiring body and not treating 1/2/2000 and 3/2/2000 as the actual date of taking over possession while awarding interest on compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
2.01. Civil Revision Application Nos.220 to 252 of 2010 have been preferred by the very petitioner herein - Union of India, through Defence Estate Officer – acquiring body to quash and set aside the impugned common order dtd.4/9/2010 passed by the learned Executing Court – learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur in Land Reference Execution Application Nos.3/2009 to 35/2009, by which the learned Executing Court has directed the applicant to pay/ deposit balance amount as per the respective Judgement and Awards passed by the learned Reference Court, more particularly directing the acquiring body to pay interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from 25/3/1987 / 12/5/1987 / 8/5/1987, respectively and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period considering the dates 7/5/1987, 25/3/1987 and 8/5/1987 respectively, as the date on which the acquiring body took the possession and/or the respective land owners handed over the possession of the acquired land to the acquiring body and not treating 1/2/2000 and 3/2/2000 as the actual date of taking over possession while awarding interest on compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
2.02. Civil Revision Application Nos.273 to 294 of 2010 have been preferred by the very petitioner herein - Union of India, through Defence Estate Officer – acquiring body to quash and set aside the impugned common order dtd.4/9/2010 passed by the learned Executing Court – learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur in Land Reference Execution Application Nos.36 to 57 of 2009, by which the learned Executing Court has directed the applicant to pay/ deposit balance amount as per the respective Judgement and Awards passed by the learned Reference Court, more particularly directing the acquiring body to pay interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from 25/3/1987 / 12/5/1987 / 8/5/1987, respectively and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period considering the dates 7/5/1987, 25/3/1987 and 8/5/1987 respectively, as the date on which the acquiring body took the possession and/or the respective land owners handed over the possession of the acquired land to the acquiring body and not treating 1/2/2000 and 3/2/2000 as the actual date of taking over possession while awarding interest on compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
2.03. Civil Revision Application Nos.295 to 324 of 2010 have been preferred by the very petitioner herein - Union of India, through Defence Estate Officer – acquiring body to quash and set aside the impugned common order dtd.4/9/2010 passed by the learned Executing Court – learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur in Land Reference Execution Application Nos.125/2009 to 154/2009, by which the learned Executing Court has directed the applicant to pay/ deposit balance amount as per the respective Judgement and Awards passed by the learned Reference Court, more particularly directing the acquiring body to pay interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from 25/3/1987 / 12/5/1987 / 8/5/1987, respectively and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period considering the dates 7/5/1987, 25/3/1987 and 8/5/1987 respectively, as the date on which the acquiring body took the possession and/or the respective land owners handed over the possession of the acquired land to the acquiring body and not treating 1/2/2000 and 3/2/2000 as the actual date of taking over possession while awarding interest on compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
2.04. Civil Revision Application Nos.325 to 359 of 2010 have been preferred by the very petitioner herein - Union of India, through Defence Estate Officer – acquiring body to quash and set aside the impugned common order dtd.4/9/2010 passed by the learned Executing Court – learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Palanpur in Land Reference Execution Application Nos.58/2009 and 92/2009, by which the learned Executing Court has directed the applicant to pay/ deposit balance amount as per the respective Judgement and Awards passed by the learned Reference Court, more particularly directing the acquiring body to pay interest on the amount of compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from 25/3/1987 / 12/5/1987 / 8/5/1987, respectively and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period considering the dates 7/5/1987, 25/3/1987 and 8/5/1987 respectively, as the date on which the acquiring body took the possession and/or the respective land owners handed over the possession of the acquired land to the acquiring body and not treating 1/2/2000 and 3/2/2000 as the actual date of taking over possession while awarding interest on compensation under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.
3.00. Having heard Mr.P.S. Champaneri as well as Mr.Ansin Desai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the for petitioner - Union of India – acquiring body, Mr.Kabir Hathi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 – State of Gujarat and Mr.Jigar Gadhvi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondents – original claimants, in the respective Civil Revision Applications and considering the impugned common orders passed by the learned Executing Court, it appears that the main dispute is with respect to actual date of taking the physical possession of the acquired land. It is also not in dispute that even the said dispute was raised before this Court in the First Appeal No. 2091 of 1993 and other allied First Appeals arising out of the respective Judgement and Awards passed by learned Reference Court which were sought to be executed. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner – acquiring body as well as respondent No.1 that the actual and physical possession of the acquired land was not handed over and the respective land owners continue to cultivate the land and the actual and physical possession of the lands in question was handed over on 1/2/2000 and 3/2/2000 and therefore, the claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first time from 1/2/2000 and 3/2/2000 and not handed over and 25/3/1987, 12/5/1987 and 8/5/1987, respectively, as contended on behalf of the claimants, however, it is the case on behalf of the original claimants that the actual and physical possession of the acquired land was handed over in the year 1987 and the same was also reflected in the revenue record. Therefore, it is the case on behalf of the claimants that they are entitled to compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from 1987 and not from 2000 as alleged by the petitioner herein and respondent No.1.
3.01. It appears from the impugned orders that the learned Executing Court has directed the petitioner - acquiring body to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 1987 solely relying upon the affidavits filed by the original claimants in the respective references filed at the time of withdrawal of the amount which was deposited by the petitioner - acquiring body that they have handed over the physical possession in the year 1987 and thereafter they were not in possession, however, it is required to be noted that the said affidavits are not exhibited. It is also not in dispute that the parties have not led evidence with respect to taking over the actual and physical possession. Therefore, it appears that when there was a serious dispute with respect to actual date of taking the physical possession of the acquired land, which will have a direct bearing on the payment of he interest on the price determined, the Executing Court was required to led evidence. Even the respective claimants are required to step into witness box and they can cross-examine or even the petitioner and/or respondent No.1 herein, Collector / Dy.Collector are required to lead evidence that the actual and physical possession was handed over not in the year 1987 as alleged but in the year 2000. In absence of any other evidence, the learned Executing Court has materially erred in directing the petitioner to pay interest on the price determined for the acquired land at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from 25/3/1987, 12/5/1987 and 8/5/1987, respectively and considering the dates 7/5/1987, 25/3/1987 and 8/5/1987 respectively, and considering the dates 7/5/1987, 25/3/1987 and 8/5/1987 respectively, as having handing over the actual and physical possession of the acquired land.
3.02. Considering the facts and circumstances, there is a broad consensus between the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties, more particularly Mr.Jigar Gadhvi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents – original claimants that the impugned common order passed by the learned Executing Court be quashed and set aside and the matter may be remanded to the learned Executing Court for deciding the said application afresh in accordance with law and on merits and permitting the parties to lead evidence on the aforesaid issue with respect to the actual date of taking the physical possession of the acquired land, however, Mr.Gadhvi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has requested to direct the learned Executing Court to dispose of the execution petitions on remand at the earliest and within stipulated time in accordance with law and on merits and without in any way being influenced by the present order of quashing and setting aside the impugned orders.
3.03. Mr.Gadhvi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has stated at the bar that he does not invite further reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the common impugned order and remanding the matter to the learned Executing Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on merits, hence this Court is not assigning any further reasoned order while quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and remanding the matter to the learned Executing Court.
4.00. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all theses Civil Revision Applications are allowed and the impugned orders are hereby quashed and set aside and all the matters are remanded to the learned Executing Court to decide the aforesaid execution petitions afresh in accordance with law and on material and after adjudicating the dispute with respect to the date of taking over actual and physical possession of the acquired lands and for that it will be open for the parties to lead evidence, oral as well as documentary and thereafter the learned Executing Court to take pass final order on remand with respect to actual date of taking over / handing over the actual and physical possession of the acquired lands and to consider from which date the original claimants are entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the price determined for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent period as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. However, it is observed that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits with respect to the above, in favour of either of the parties and it is ultimately for the learned Executing Court to consider the same in accordance with law and on merits and on the basis of the evidence that may be led. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the learned Executing Court within a period of SIX MONTHS from the date of receipt of the writ of the present Judgement and Order. All the concerned are hereby directed to cooperate the learned Executing Court in early disposal of the aforesaid execution petitions and within stipulated time stated hereinabove. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent in each of the Revision Applications. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
[M.R. SHAH, J.] rafik