Back
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :S.K.Keshote
GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
NARMADASHANKAR BHAGVANDAS THAKAR - Respondent
C.A. 55 of 1981
Decided On : 03/08/1999
This Court agree with the Trial Court and the High Court that the method adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer for determining compensation payable for extinction of the interest of the holder of the land and of the buildings separately was unwarranted. In determining compensation payable in respect of land with buildings, compensation cannot be determined by ascertaining the value of the land with buildings, compensation cannot be determined by ascertaining the value of the land and the break-up value of the building separately. The land and the building constitute one unit, and the value of the entire unit must be determined with all its advantages and its potentialities. Under Sec. 23 of the Land Acquisition Act compensation has to be determined by taking into consideration the market value of the land at the date of the publication of the notification under Sec. 4 (1) and the damage, if any, sustained by the persons interested under any of the heads mentioned in secondly to sixthly in Sec. 23 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act.
[Para 16]
(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Secs. 3(a) & 4 - Notification for acquisition of land with survey number therein - In view of definition of land under Sec. 3(a) super-structure standing on the land deemed to have been included - Grievance of plaintiff respondent that super-structure is not seperately notified as such has no substance & merit.
The land which is subject matter of dispute in the appeal was admittedly agricultural land and some strucutre was also standing thereon. With reference to the definition of the land as given in clause a of Sec. 3 of the Act, their Lordship of Supreme Court held in the case of State of Kerala vs. P.P. Hassan Koya, AIR 1968 SC 1201 that the structure standing on the land deemed to have been included or stood included in the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act. In this case in the notification under Sec. 4 of the Act admittedly the land has been included and sufficient notice has been given to the plaintiff respondent by mentioning its survey number therein. The Learned First Appellate Court has fell in serious error in holding that the super structure has to be separately notified for the acquisition, its possession to be taken separately and separate compensation for it has to be determined. The super structure on the land in dispute includes in the land itself and when the land is vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances the State Government is perfectly legal and justified to take the possession of the land as well as the super structure standing thereon.
From the scheme of provisions of the Act and what their Lordship of Supreme Court also held that the land and the building are not to be separately notified and assessed for the compensation. Against the acquisition of the land normally two remedies are available to the aggrieved person i.e., to challenge the acquisition or to go before the authority to take the proper determination of compensation to be paid for the acquisition thereof. In this case, the compensation has been determined and it is too difficult to accept that while determining compensation the LAO would not have taken note of the super structure standing on the land.
[Para 20]
( 1 ) THIS second appeal under Sec. 100 of Civil Procedure code, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree of the Assistant Judge, mehsana dated 9-7-1980 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 2 of 1978 reversing the judgment and decree of Civil Judge, (J. D.), Harij dated 24-11-1977 in Regular civil Suit No. 66 of 1973.
( 2 ) THE plaintiffs-respondents sued for possession of ordi and surrounding open land and to get the mesne profit for the period from which the defendantsappellants have taken the possession of the suit property till they actually got the possession and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants-appellants to demolish the construction of the ordi.
( 3 ) THE facts of this case are that the suit has been filed by the plaintiffsrespondents on the ground that on 1-10-1973, the defendant-appellants have illegally taken the possession of this property-ordi and surrounding land, which is situated in the compound of Harij depot of G. S. T. R. C. at Harij and prayer has been made for declaration, injunction and restoration of the possession of the suit property and mesne profits.
( 4 ) THE suit of the plaintiffs-respondents has been contested by the defendantsappellants by filing written statement at Ex. 16. The defendants-appellants have come up with a case that they are the owners and in possession of the original survey No. 285 duly acquired by the State Government under the provisions of land Acquisition Act, 1894 for them and compensation is also paid for the acquisition of the said land to the plaintiffs-respondents. The Harij depot at Harij is constructed by the defendants-appellants upon this original Survey No. 285. Prayer has been made for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiffs in toto.
( 5 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as 9 issues at Ex. 19, which read as under :1. Whether the plaintiff proves that Government acquired the land of 1 Hectare 67 Are and 67 sq. meters by giving award on 7-12-1970 for the state Road Transport Corporation ?2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the land acquired with hedge with the hut was not acquired by the Government ?3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the said hut was used by him for keeping implements, bullock-cart etc. , for the purpose of agriculture ?4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant and his agents have destroyed the said hut and caused damage to it ?5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration, injunction and possession as prayed by him ?6. Whether the defendant proves that the disputed land was acquired by the Government for the Corporation ?7. Whether the defendant is in possession of the suit land ?8. Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff himself removed the material from the disputed hut ?9. What order and what decree ?
( 6 ) THE trial Court decided the issue Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 in negative whereas the issue Nos. 3, 6 and 7 were decided in affirmative. The trial Court has, therefore, decided that the land of 1 Hectare 67 Are and 67 sq. meters has been acquired by the Government for State Road Transport Corporation and award has been given on 7-12-1970. It has been held by the Court that the land surrounded by hedge with the hut was acquired. Issue No. 3 that the plaintiff was using the said hut for keeping implements, bullock-cart etc. , has been decided in favour of the plaintiffs-respondents. Under issue No. 4 it is decided that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the defendants-appellants have destroyed the said hut and caused damage to it. Under issue No. 5, the trial Court decided that the plaintiffsrespondents are not entitled for declaration, injunction and possession as prayed in the suit. Issue No. 6 has been decided in favour of the defendants-appellants that the land in dispute has been acquired by the Government for Corporation. Issue no. 7 has been decided in favour of the defendants that they were in possession of the suit land. Issue No. 8 h
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
