DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,o. N. G. C. vs CHATURJI LALAJI

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(Guj) 355

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :H.R.Shelat, J.N.Bhatt
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,o.N.G.C. - Appellant
Versus
CHATURJI LALAJI - Respondent
S.C.A. 5134 of 1996
Decided On : 07/29/1997

Advocates Appeared: A.J.PATEL, AJAY MEHTA, MUKESH R.PATEL, P.G.DESAI

Headnote:(a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Secs. 4(1) & 23 (1-A) — Benefit of additional amount to market value — Entitlement commences from date of publication of notification under Sec. 4(1) to the date of award of collector or date of taking over possession of the lands whichever is earlier — However in the case claimant were not entitled to benefit from date of possession because land covered under notification was already temporarily under acquisition of appellant on rental basis — However, claimant shall be entitled to 12% increase by benefit under Sec. 23(1-A) from date of notification.
       Ordinarily, in view of the provisions of Sec. 23(1- A) as amended by the Act 68 of 1984, in addition to the market value of the land, the claimant is entitled to in every case for an award of the amount at the rate of 12% p.a. on market value for the period commencing on and from the date of publication of the notification under Sec. 4(1) in respect of such land to the date of award of the Collector or the date of taking over possession of the lands whichever is earlier. It could very well be seen from the aforesaid provisions that ordinarily the date of posession must be reckoned with for the purpose of Sec. 23(1-A) of the Act. However, in the present case, it will not be applicable for the obvious reason that the lands which are covered under the notification dated 1.2.1990 were already temporarily under acquisition by the appellant ONGC on rental basis. Since the lands were accruing compensation for temporary acquisition by the same authority, the date of possession i.e., 8.1.1986 will pale into insignificance and instead the date of publication of notification under Sec. 4(1) of the Act i.e., 1.2.1990 will assume importance. In other words, the claimants shall not be entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Sec. 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of possession i.e,. 8.1.1986 to 30.1.1991 as awarded by the reference court. Instead, the claimants would be entitled to 12% increase of benefit arising out of the provisions of Sec. 23(1-A) of the Act from the date of notification under Sec. 4(1) i.e., 1.2.1990 to the date of award made by the Spl. Land Acq. Officer i.e., 30.1.1991. Obviously, therefore, the impugned judgments in this group of appeals shall stand modified accordingly.
       [Para 11]
       (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — Sec. 23 — Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Laws Act, 1948 — Sec. 43 — Deduction of 5 per cent in cases of new tenure land from market value — Admissibility — Point not res integra & it is already decided by Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Babu Govind, reported in AIR 1996 SC 904 — It is held that such deduction is not permissible & provisions under Sec. 43 of the Land Act, 1948 are not applicable to compulsory acquisition of land.
       It has been clearly laid down while interpreting and appreciating the provisions of Sec. 23 of the Act, that deduction of 1/3rd amount of market value under Sec. 43 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act (67 of 1948) is not permissible for the simple reason that the provisions of Sec. 43 have no application to the compulsory acquisition of land. The direction contained in the impugned two common judgments in this behalf, therefore, is quashed and set aside.
       [Para 10]

J. N. BHATT, J.

( 1 ) ADMIT. In this group of eight appeals, the service is waived by learned Advocate Mr. A. J. Patel for the respondents-original claimants, by learned a. G. P. Mr. Mukesh Patel for Spl. Land Acq. Officer in F. A. Nos. 5137 of 1996 to 5141 of 1996 and by learned G. P. Mr. P. G. Desai, for Spl. Land Acq. Officer in f. A. Nos. 5134 of 1996 to 5136 of 1996. Upon joint request, the entire group of eight appeals is taken up today for final hearing. In view of the fact that the common questions are involved arising out of common award and common notification, they are being disposed of by this common judgment simultaneously.

( 2 ) THE appellant O. N. G. C. is the original opponent No. 2, has questioned the legality and validity of the two common judgments and eight awards arising out of land Acq. Case Nos. 772 to 779 of 1991. The aforesaid eight Land Acq. Cases were heard upon a reference, by the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) and recorded two judgments which are under challenge in this group of eight appeals. Thus, as there were eight Land Acq. Cases out of which Land Acq. Case Nos. 777, 778 and 779 all of 1991 (three cases) came to be decided by the District Court by a common judgment on 16-8-1996 involving F. A. Nos. 5134, 5135, 5136 all of 1996, whereas in remaining five cases, Land Acq. Case Nos. 772 to 776 all of 1991 came to be decided by the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) on the same day, i. e. , on 16-8- 1996 involving F. A. Nos. 5137 to 5141 all of 1996. Thus, eight Land Acq. Cases which came to be disposed of by two common judgments by the District Court, are under challenge in this group of eight appeals.

( 3 ) THE appellant-Acquiring Body - O. N. G. C. had acquired different parcels of lands situated at village Uvarsad, Taluka and District Gandhinagar for the purpose of Water Injection Plant at O. N. G. C. Group Gathering Station. Notification under s. 4 (1) of the Land Acq. Act, 1894 (Act) was published on 1-2-1990 and notification under S. 6 came to be published on 26-7-1990. Notification under Sec. 9 of the Act was also issued to the claimants. Spl. Land Acq. Officer, after hearing the claimants, offered and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per sq. mt. in all the cases. A reference came to be made at the instance of the claimants for higher compensation. The claimants claimed an amount of Rs. 70. 00 per sq. mt. before the reference Court in Land Acq. Cases, inter alia, contending that the Spl. Land acq. Officer has not offered and awarded the amount of compensation considering the real market value of the lands at the relevant time.

( 4 ) THE claimants claimed higher amount of compensation on the following grounds :- (i) That the village Uvarsad is a developed village; (ii) That the acquired lands are irrigated agricultural lands; (iii) That the lands which came to be acquired were available for three crops per years; (iv) That the village has infrastructural facilities like water, light, bank, schools, etc. (v) That the geographical locations of the lands were prominent. The reference Court, after taking into account the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and hearing the parties, reached to the conclusion that the claimants would be entitled to the additional amount of Rs. 30. 00 per sq. mt. In all, the claimants were found entitled to an amount of Rs. 5. 00 per sq. mt. as awarded by the Spl. Land Acq. Officer and an additional amount of Rs. 30. 00 per sq. mt. as awarded by the District Court totaling to Rs. 35. 00 per sq. mt. as against the claim of Rs. 70. 00 sq. mt. The Spl. Land Acq. Officers Award came to be recorded on 30-1-1991. The reference Court decided group of eight claims by two common judgments on 16-8-1996. Reference Court held that the amount offered and awarded by the Spl. Land Acq. Officer is not reflecting correct market value of the lands under acquisition and awarded an additional amount of rs. 30/- per sq. mt. with solatium and inter

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(Guj) 355

Gujarat High CourtJudgename :H.R.Shelat, J.N.BhattDEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,o.N.G.C. - AppellantVersusCHATURJI LALAJI - RespondentS.C.A. 5134 of 1996Decided On : 07/29/1997

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :H.R.Shelat, J.N.Bhatt
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,o.N.G.C. - Appellant
Versus
CHATURJI LALAJI - Respondent
S.C.A. 5134 of 1996
Decided On : 07/29/1997