Back
2009 Supreme(Guj) 252
2010 (1) GCD 159 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod
Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors.
Versus
Bipinbhai Bhagvanbhai
First Appeal No. 3702 of 20081—Decided on 23/04/2009
Appearance :
Ms. Manisha Narsinghani, AGP for the Appellants No. 1 - 3.
Mr. Krunal D. Pandya, for the Defendant No. 1.
Point in Issue :
Whether Reference Court was justified in awarded additional compensation to claimants?
Headnote:Head Note :
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (Central Act 1 of 1894) — Section 18 — Award by Reference Court — Allowing additional compensation — Objections there against — Sustainability — Finding of — The Court made reference to appeals decided by this Court on 13.02.2009 — In view of the judgment passed by the Court in those appeals which were in respect of same village Danda Rs. 36.50 per square meter awarded by reference Court was confirmed by this Court — In those appeals reasoning given by reference Court was considered in detail in respect of same village with similar facts and in the back ground of same reasoning — In the present appeals reference Court has decided entire matter on the base of yield method — While considering income received by claimants — Sale instances cited by opponents were rightly rejected by reference Court because no title deed were produced by opponents — Reference Court has also observed that opponents have not proved parity of quality of land under 5 years sale instance as well — Court considering award as a whole in light of appeals decided by it earlier held that reference has awarded reasonable compensation and has committed no error.
Held :
In view of the above judgment passed by this Court in aforesaid group of appeals in respect of same village Danda where Rs. 36.50 per square meter was awarded by reference Court has been confirmed by this court, where reasoning given by reference Court has been considered by this Court in detail in respect of same village, according to my opinion, contention raised by learned AGP Ms. Manisha Narsinghani cannot be accepted because reference Court has decided entire matter on the basis of yield method while considering income received by claimants from crops and worked out figure and deducted cultivation cost and then net income has been decided and on that basis, market price has been fixed but ultimately, it is based on guess work and therefore, there cannot be exact figure as stated earlier. Sale instances cited by opponents were rejected by reference Court on the ground that they are mere statement, no title deed has been produced on behalf of opponents, therefore, quality of lands under said statement and present reference cannot be compared. While considering sale instances, it was also observed by reference Court that the opponents have not proved parity of quality of the lands under 5 years sale instance as well as under references and on that basis, reference Court has held that mere statement of sale instance cannot be considered. Therefore, aforesaid contentions raised by Ms. Manisha Narsinghani cannot be accepted. Considering award as a whole in light of earlier decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 2686 to 2693 of 2007 dated 13.2.2009, according to my opinion, reference Court has rightly decided matter and has awarded reasonable compensation to those whose lands were acquired by State Authority and, therefore, according to my opinion, reference Court has not committed any error in passing award in question and has awarded reasonable compensation [Para 18]
Law Laid Down :
It is natural tendency of any prudent to exaggerate the version with a view to secure higher rate of compensation, therefore, his deposition can not be accepted as gospel truth.
Case Law Analysis :
Special Land Acquisition Officer, U. K. Project vs. Mahaboob & Anr. 2009 (3) Scale 263 [Para 6];; Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-LAO vs. Sahik Azam Saheb etc. etc., 2009 AIR SCW 1515 [Para 7];; General Manager, Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another, 2009 (2) MLJ 78 (SC) [Para 8];; Mohammad Faofuddin versus The Land Acquisition Officer, Civil Appeal No. 2385 of 2009, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14209 of 2006, decided on 13.4.2009 [Para 8];; Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board etc. versus KS Gangadharappa & Anr. etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 2549-2553 of 2009, SLP (C) No. 12860-12864 of 2007, decided on 15.4.2009 [Para 8].—Relied on
H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned AGP Mr. Manisha Narsinghani for appellants and Mr. Krunal D. Pandya, learned Advocate for respondents claimants in this group of appeals.
2. By filing these appeals, appellants have challenged award passed by reference Court Bharuch in LAR Case No. 74 to 112 of 1997 (Main LAR No. 74/97) Exh. 178 dated 30.4.2005 wherein reference Court has held that the claimants are entitled to get market price of their acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 36.50 ps. Per sq. mtrs. as additional compensation with other usual benefits. Lands of claimants were acquired by Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 3.11.1993 and awarded Rs. 2.20 ps. Per sq mtr. Under LAQ No. 27/91 and, therefore, aforesaid references were made at the instance of claimants under sec. 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Acquired lands were of the same village and vicinity and acquired under LAQ Case No. 27/91, therefore, as per Exh.10 application made on behalf of claimants, matters were consolidated and evidence was recorded in main LAR No. 74 of 1997 which have been decided by reference Court vide aforesaid common judgment and award.
3. Ms. Manisha Narsinghani, learned AGP for appellants submitted that the reference Court ought to have seen that the claimants could not produce any documentary evidence to support their claim of additional compensation. She further submitted that the reference Court ought to have appreciated that the claimants have accepted compensation awarded without any objection. She further submitted that the reference Court ought to have seen that the award was made by land acquisition officer after considering the fertility of land, location of land, development of nearby areas etc. She further submitted that the reference Court has erred in awarding additional compensation of Rs. 36.50 per square meter committed serious error and not followed the established principles of determining the compensation as per provisions of Land Acquisition Act. She further submitted that it ought to have been appreciated that after taking into consideration all factors, compensation was fixed and burden was upon the claimant to show how award of land acquisition officer was not correct. She further submitted that the reference Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the land acquisition officer has considered location of each piece of land, prevailing market rates, type of land and other relevant factors, nature of land, area, level and development of the land and have considered the sale instances of last five years. It was also her submission that the impugned award made by reference Court is not in accordance with well established principles for determination of market value of the land under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. She further submitted that the reference Court ought to have appreciated that at the time of fixing the market value of the land, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has considered various factors and thereafter has declared his award.
4. On the other hand, learned Advocate Mr. Krunal Pandya appearing for respondent claimants has made submission while supporting impugned award that this Court has considered First Appeal No. 2686 of 2007 to First Appeal No. 2693 of 2007 by order dated 13th February, 2009 wherein award made by reference Court Bharuch in LAR No. 2822 to 2829 of 1997 Exh. 126 dated 5th March, 2005 awarding additional compensation of Rs. 36.50 per square meter in Compensation Case No. 71 of 1994 was under challenge. He further submitted that in the said matter, Reference Court has considered the previous award in respect to village Ikkhar Exh.74 and Exh.75 passed in LAR Case Nos.400 to 408 of 1992 and LAR Case No. 1179 to 1205 of 1992 and 1993 and the Notification under Section-4 in respect to Ikkhar village of previous award was dated 14.6.1990. He further submitted that this Court has dismissed said appeals filed by the State authority relying upon the previous award p
