1. This appeal by the appellant-original claimant is filed against the judgment and order dated 26-4-
1996 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, in Land Acquisition Reference No.309 of 1997 whereby additional amount of compensation of Rs.342/- per sq.mtr. was awarded by the learned Assistant Judge in addition to Rs.1-20 to Rs.2-50 per sq.mtr. awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
2. The lands of the present appellant-original claimant and other claimants situated in Village Borisana, District Mehsana, were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for construction of houses for weaker section of society. Notification under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') was published in Gazette on 15-11- 1979. Thereafter, a notification under Sec.6 was issued on 10-11-82. The Land Acquisition Officer after hearing the parties awarded compensation of Rs.1.20 to Rs.2.50 per sq.mtr vide award dated 23-9- 1986. Being dissatisfied with the same, the claimants moved references. As all the issues and evidence in all the above references were common, the references were consolidated by the reference court and main evidence was taken in Case No.320 of 1987. The claimants claimed that as lands were fertile and were taking crops in three seasons, they should be awarded Rs.200/- per sq.mtr. Reference Court passed the impugned award as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment awarding additional compensation @ Rs.32/- per sq.mtr. Being aggrieved by the same, present appellant-original claimant of LAR No.309 of 1987 preferred the present appeal.
3. Heard learned advocate, Mr.A.V.Prajapati for the appellant-original claimant and learned AGP, Mr.P.P.Banaji, for the respondents.
4. It is submitted by learned advocate, Mr.A.V.Prajapati, that the judgment and award of the Court below is contrary to evidence on record. It is further submitted that sale instances cited by the claimant have not been considered by the learned Judge. It is further submitted that considering the development in the vicinity and looking to the potentiality of the land, just and reasonable amount ought to have been awarded by the learned Judge. He further submitted that in an adjoining land acquired by ONGC, the District Court granted Rs.45/- per sq.mtr. It is further submitted that learned Judge did not properly appreciate the documentary evidence produced at Ex.35 whereby compensation @ Rs.150/- per sq.mtr. was granted. Relying on a judgment rendered in First Appeal No.1112 of 1975, he submitted that at least compensation as granted in the said judgment @ Rs.87.50 ought to have been granted as land in those cases was situated near Kalol town while land in the present case is also situated near Kalol town and there is no much difference between those lands and lands under acquisition. It is, therefore, submitted that impugned judgment and order requires to be modified and additional compensation as prayed by the the claimant may be awarded.
5. It is submitted by learned AGP, Mr.Banaji for the respondents that the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, relying upon the documentary evidence and sale instances of nearby areas awarded just and compensation. He further submitted that relying on the compensation awarded by the District Court, Mehsana and judgment delivered by the High Court of Gujarat, the learned Judge granted additional compensation of Rs.32/- per sq.mtr. According to him, said judgment and order is just, legal and proper and same does not require to be interfered with in this appeal.
6. This Court has gone through the award of the Land Acquisition Officer as well as the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. It is not in dispute that the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market price keeping in mind the sale instances of various surrounding lands. It is also not in dispute that the lands under acquisition were good quality lands and having good potentiality. Therefore, considering the evidence on record and considering the judgments delivered by the District Court as well as the judgment delivered by this Court in various First Appeals, trial court has awarded additional compensation @ Rs.32/-- per sq.mtr. which, in the opinion of this Court, is just and adequate. Said amount has been awarded by the Reference Court after considering the entire evidence on record and also keeping in mind the sale instances as well as the judgments delivered by the District Court as well as this Court in various First Appeals. There is no infirmity in the findings arrived at by the reference Court and hence, they are not required to be interfered with by this Court in this appeal. Moreover, the learned advocate for the appellant failed to point out any such reason or material on the basis of which a different view than the one taken by the reference Court can be taken by this Court. In view of the above, this appeal is required to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
[M.D.SHAH,J.] radhan