Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :M.B.SHAH, N.N.MATHUR
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - Appellant
Versus
PATEL BHAGWANDAS K. - Respondent
C.A. 492 of 1995
Decided On : 06/14/1995
The price of the land under acquisition cannot be fixed on the basis of sale executed by AUDA after lapse of some years. In any case, the aforesaid price does not take into consideration at all the expenses incurred by AUDA in acquiring the lands, in developing the same and other expenses required for establishment.
[Para 8]
(b) Tenancy & Land Laws - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sec. 23 - Compensation - Principles governing for acquisition of Agricultural lands - District Court erred in not considering sale instance of agricultural land located nearby only at a distance of 500 metres from land under acquisition and sold few month before the notification under Sec. 4 in the case.
This land hearing Survey No. 726 is situated at the distance on 500 metres from the lands under acquisition and there is no reason not to rely upon the said deed and the evidence of Bhagwandas for determining the market price of the lands under acquisition. In our view, clearly, this would be the best piece of evidence for determining the market price of the lands under acquisition, because the sale instances are for lands in neighbourhood with similar advantage and potentialities. The sale deeds are also executed on 11th June 1980, while in the present case, notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was published on 15th November 1979.
[Para 8]
(c) Tenancy & Land Laws - Compensation - Plea to advance date of notification by three years to determine as acquisition was with profit motive - Held, plea totally irrelevant - Court is required to determine the market price of the lands under acquisition on basis of date of notification under Sec. 4 of the Act - Court has no jurisdiction to advance date of notification on ground of delay - Provision in built in Sec. 23 (1A) and Sec. 28 of the Act, to take care of loss suffered by claimants.
The contention that the lands are acquired for profiteering, in our view, this submission is totally irrelevant in the present proceedings for determining the market price of the lands under acquisition. In these First Appeals, we are required to determine the market price of the lands under acquisition on the basis of date of notification under Sec. 4 and after considering relevant evidence with regard to the prevailing market rate of the lands. Similarly, with regard to other contention also, we have no jurisdiction to advance the date of publication of notification under Sec. 4 on the ground of delay, as alleged by the learned Counsel for the claimants, in making the award under Sec. 11 of the Act. If the claimants were aggrieved by the so-called delay, it was open to them to challenge the award at the relevant time before the appropriate forum. In any case, Sec. 23(1A) and the rate of interest provided in Sec. 28 of the Land Acquisition Act would take care of the loss suffered by the claimants on account of passing of award after lapse of some years. Further the submission of striking down notification in the compensation appeal is unusual, which cannot be entertained. Lastly, submission of paying equivalent of value of a rupee in 1979 also cannot be accepted. As stated above, the Legislature has taken care by introducing Sec. 23(1A) and paying higher rate of interest. Hence, in our, view, there is no substance in these contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the claimants.
[Para 9]
( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31st August 1994, passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, in Land Reference Case Nos. 497 of 1987 to 536 of 1987 and 539 of 1987 to 592 of 1987 and 592/1, 592/2, 592/3 and 593 of 1987 and 137 of 1987, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has filed these appeals.
( 2 ) THE claimants have also filed cross-objections in each matter.
( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, the lands were acquired by Ahmedabad Urban Development authority (auda for short) for the purpose of constructing residential buildings for township for "economically backward group, low income group, medium income group, high income group", for which notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition act (the Act for short) was published in the official gazette on 15th November 1979. Notification under Sec. 6 of the Act was published on 10th November 1982. The Land Acquisition Officer divided the lands into 11 groups and awarded compensation at a rate ranging between Rs. 13 and Rs. 25 per sq. metre.
( 4 ) AGAINST that award, the claimants preferred aforesaid Land Reference Cases before the District Court, Mehsana. The learned Assistant Judge awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 70. 00 to Rs. 80. 00 per sq. mtr. by dividing the lands into three groups.
( 5 ) AT the time of admission hearing of these matters, the learned Government pleader pointed out that the impugned award passed by the learned Judge is arbitrary and without application of mind. While admitting the matters, the Court stayed operation of the award passed by the learned Judge and directed expeditious hearing of the matters. The matters were fixed for hearing on 3rd April 1995 and thereafter were placed on Board in July 1995.
( 6 ) II. SUBMISSIONS the learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the Special Land acquisition Officer, vehemently submitted that the award passed by the learned Judge is on the face of it erroneous and is passed without considering or appreciating the evidence produced on record. He submitted that the learned Judge has materially erred in not considering the sale instances Exh. 119 to Exh. 123 with regard to lands bearing survey Nos. 726/1 and 726/2. According to his submission, these lands were purchased by the claimant Bhagwandas Ratilal Sheth or his sons or by a partnership firm consisting of his sons, as deposed by him before the Court. He submitted that, had the learned Judge referred to the aforesaid sale deeds, it would have been amply clear that, in the said sale deeds, it is mentioned that the lands bearing Survey Nos. 726/1 and 726/2 were sold at the rate of Rs. 9. 00 per sq. yard as per Banakhats executed in October 1978. He further pointed out that in the document, it is stated that banakhats were executed in October 1978 and price fixed was Rs. 9. 00 per sq. yard. Therefore, there was no reason for the learned Judge to grant additional compensation, as the Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation ranging from Rs. 13 to rs. 25 per sq. mtr. He submitted that, admittedly, lands bearing Survey Nos. 726/ 1 and 726/2 are situated in the vicinity of lands under acquisition, and, therefore, before the trial Court, the claimants have relied upon the award (Exh. 19) dated 13th January 1993 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Mehsana, for the said lands bearing Survey Nos. 726/1 and 726/2. As per the said award, market value of the said land was fixed at the rate of Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mtr. According to his say, no reliance should be placed on award (Exh. 19) because, in that case, even the sale instance, upon which reliance is placed by the learned Judge for determining the market value, is not appreciated by the Court. As against this learned Counsel, Mr. Patel appearing for the claimants, vehemently submitted that the lands under acquisition are situated within the developed area of Kalol town. He pointed out that the lands under acquisition are covered under the Town Planning Scheme
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
