Back
2010 (3) GCD 2402 (Guj) (DB)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Justice Jayant Patel &
Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.B. Antani
State of Gujarat
Versus
Patel Jayantilal Mohanlal & Anr.
First Appeal No. 216 of 20041—Decided on 24/09/2010
Land Acquisition Act — Sections 4, 6, 11 and 23 (1-A) — Award by reference Court — Compensation — Quantum challenged as excessive — Court referring to it’s earlier decision which was upheld by Apex Court held that compensation awarded by reference Court with other statutory benefits is proper and adequate and calls for no interference.
Held :
It deserves to be recorded that the very Reference Court, in respect of the very acquisition of the other lands located at Lakhtar, in Reference Case No. 306 of 1997 to 327 of 1997, after considering the material on record had assessed the market price of the land at Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr for non-irrigated land and as Rs. 2/- was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the additional compensation was awarded at Rs. 18/- per sq. mtr. The statutory benefits of 30% solatium, increase as per Section 23(1-A) and interest as per the provisions of the Act were also awarded. The said judgement and award of the Reference Court was challenged by the Appellant before this Court being First Appeals No. 3067 of 2001 to 2388 of 2001. and all the First Appeals, vide judgement and order dated 20.11.2002, came to be dismissed for the reasons recorded in the said decision. [Para 5]
It may also be recorded that against the above referred decision of this Court in First Appeal No. 3067 of 2001 and allied matters, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and others had carried the matter before the Apex Court being Civil Appeal No. 9702 – 9723 of 2007 and the leave was granted. However, vide order dated 27.4.2010 of the Apex Court, the Special Leave Petitions and the Appeals are dismissed. The aforesaid goes to show that the view taken by this Court has not been interferred with by the Apex Court and the legal position prevails accordingly. [Para 7]
In the result, the judgement and award of the Reference Court for awarding the additional compensation at Rs. 18/- per sq. mtrs. , or Rs. 17.85 sq. mtrs., as the case may be, in the concerned Reference Cases for the non-irrigated land and Rs. 27/- per sq. mtr., for irrigated land deserve to be confirmed and are confirmed accordingly. The other statutory benefits as awarded by the Reference Court in the concerned judgements are for 30% solatium and for increase as per Section 23(1-A) of the Act and the interest as per the statutory provisions of the Act, hence, no interference is called for on the said aspects and deserves to be confirmed. [Para14]
Law Laid Down :
Award has to be ultimately satisfied by the State and if the award is not challenged by the State then said award would be come final.
Jayant Patel, J.—In all the matters, as common questions arise for consideration, they are being considered by this common judgement.
2. It may be recorded that in all the matters, the acquisition is for Narmada Yojana Unit No. 11 and the Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) was common, published on 23.10.1992 and the Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14.10.1993. The award under Section 11 of the Act is also common, published on 1.2.1996. All the lands are situated at Lakhtar District, Surendranagar. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of Rs. 3/- per sq. mtr., for irrigated land and Rs. 2/- per sq.mtr., for non-irrigated land. As the claimants were not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, they raised the dispute and claimed the compensation of Rs. 50 per sq. mtr. The matter was thereafter referred to the Reference Court for adjudication. The Reference Court awarded the compensation as under :—
(a) In the Group of First Appeal Nos. 216 to 236 of 2004, arising from the Land Reference Case No. 328 to 348 of 1997, the additional compensation has been awarded by the Reference Court at Rs. 18/- per sq. mtr., for the non-irrigated land and Rs. 27/- per sq. mtr., for irrigated land.
(b) In the Group of First Appeal Nos. 544 to 563 of 2004, arising from the Land Reference Case No. 396 to 415 of 1997, the additional compensation has been awarded by the Reference Court at Rs. 18/- per sq. mtr., for the non-irrigated land, and there was no irrigated land.
(c) In the Group of First Appeal Nos. 1568 to 1586 of 2006, arising from the Land Reference Case No. 1 to 19 of 1999, the additional compensation has been awarded by the Reference Court at Rs. 17.85 per sq. mtr., for the non-irrigated land and there was no irrigated land under acquisition.
(d) In the Group of First Appeal Nos. 1627 to 1650 of 2007, arising from the Land Reference Case No. 140 to 153 of 1997, the additional compensation has been awarded by the Reference Court at Rs. 18/- per sq. mtr., for the non-irrigated land and there was no irrigated land.
3. In all the matters, in addition to the aforesaid additional compensation, the Reference Court has awarded statutory benefits of 30% solatium, 12% increase and the interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. It is under these circumstances, all the appeals before this Court.
4. We have heard Mr. Pujari and Mr. K.P. Raval, learned AGPs for the Appellant in the respective appeals and Mr. M.D. Vakil, learned Counsel for the original claimants in all the appeals.
5. Before we proceed to examine the other aspects, it deserves to be recorded that the very Reference Court, in respect of the very acquisition of the other lands located at Lakhtar, in Reference Case No. 306 of 1997 to 327 of 1997, after considering the material on record had assessed the market price of the land at Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr for non-irrigated land and as Rs. 2/- was already awarded as compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the additional compensation was awarded at Rs. 18/- per sq. mtr. The statutory benefits of 30% solatium, increase as per Section 23(1-A) and interest as per the provisions of the Act were also awarded. The said judgement and award of the Reference Court was challenged by the Appellant before this Court being First Appeals No. 3067 of 2001 to 2388 of 2001 and all the First Appeals, vide judgement and order dated 20.11.2002, came to be dismissed for the reasons recorded in the said decision. It would also be pertinent to note that this Court, in the above referred decision, recorded the reasons, thus, at paragraphs 7 to 14 as under :—
“7. Having perused the oral evidence as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that an amount of Rs. 2/- per sq.mtr. warded by the L.A.O. for the lands of the land owners was too meagre and
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
