SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Guj) 344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD
NAGINBHAI AMBALALBHAI PATEL - Petitioner(s)
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS. - Respondent(s)
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6518 of 2010
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13293 of 2010
Decided on : 06/10/2010

Advocates Appeared:
MR BS PATEL for Petitioner(s): 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s): 1 - 2.
MRS MAUNA M BHATT for Respondent(s): 2,
IN RESPECT TO SCA NO. 6518 OF 2010 WITH SCA NO. 13293 TO 13302 OF 2010, MR AL SHARMA AGP for Respondent(s): 3,
IN RESPECT TO SCA NO. 13303 TO 133313 OF 2010 MS JIRGA ZAVERI AGP FOR RESPONDENT (S): 3,
IN RESPECT TO SCA NO. 13314 TO 13325 OF 2010 MR AMIT PATEL AGP FOR RESPONDENT (S): 3

Headnote:

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 227 - Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 - Sections 10, 10(3)(i)(ii)(iii) - Order passed by 5th Additional District Court at Baroda in Reference Application as per section 10 subsection 2 of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users) Act, 1962 dated 15/5/2009 is under challenged in group petitions. The Additional District Court, Baroda has partly allowed an application made by petitioner - Held, Court cannot re-appreciate evidence which appreciated by District Court, while exercising power under Article 227 of Constitution of India as per recent decision of Apex Court in case of State of Haryana & Ors v. Manoj Kumar reported in 2010 AIR SCW 1990 25 - There is no substance in present group of petitions except keeping right open or liberty in favour of petitioners to claim compensation as required under section 10 subsection 3 any kind of damage to movable and immovable properties of petitioners and earning of such person cause in any other manner by filing necessary separate application before Competent authority under section 10 subsection 1 - Petitioners are not satisfied then to approach District Court, under section 10 subsection 2 of Petroleum Act claiming compensation as per section 10 subsection 3 (i)(ii)(iii) - There is no substance in present petition filed by petitioners - Petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. BS Patel on behalf of petitioners. The main SCA no. 6518/2010 filed by one petitioner Naginbhai Ambalalbhai Patel challenging award passed by 5th Additional District Court, Baroda in Land Reference case no. 46/2003 and other matters of 106 applicants. Therefore, subsequently one page petition was filed as permitted by this Court by order dated 22/9/2010. Therefore, except SCA no. 6518/2010, rest of matters are being one page petition.

2. Learned AGP Mr. AL Sharma is appearing on behalf of Special Land Acquisition Officer and learned senior advocate Mr. MR Bhatt with learned advocate Ms. MM Bhatt appearing for respondent no. 2. The affidavit in reply is filed by respondent no. 2 page 103 dated 15/7/2010. No rejoinder is filed by petitioner and no reply is filed by respondent no. 1. In group of petition, order passed by 5th Additional District Court at Baroda in Reference Application as per section 10 subsection 2 of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users) Act, 1962 dated 15/5/2009 is under challenged in group petitions. The Additional District Court, Baroda has partly allowed an application made by petitioner. The market value of land belong to applicants acquired as right of users is fixed Rs. 7,25,000/- per Hector on the date of notification under section 3(1) of Act. The Competent Authority has been directed to give additional compensation of land acquired as Right of Users as per market value fixed by Additional District Court, Baroda along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from date of application till realization of awarded amount. The applicants are directed to pay Court fees according to Court Fees Act on the additional amount of compensation as per this order on or before 30/6/2009. The deficit court fee is to be deducted from awarded amount if not paid earlier. The order regarding disbursement or otherwise will be made later.

3. The brief facts of present petition as per list of events are as under:

The petitioners are farmers and having land bearing survey no. 215, situated in sim of village Asoj, District Vadodara, admeasuring 0-27-62 HRA and respondent no. 1 who is Special Land Acquisition Officer of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) Government undertaking and respondent no. 2 is Manager of IOCL. On 6/11/1999 Notification under section 3 of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of Users) Act, 1962 had been issued. The notification under section 6 of Pipelines Act has been published on 21/3/2000 and respondent no. 1 and 2 had decided price of land per Hector Rs. 5,25,000/- for irrigated land and Rs. 3,90,000/- for non irrigated land considering Jantri price of village Asoj. Thereafter, petitioner with all farmers made an application for enhancement of compensation under section 10(2) of Petroleum Act before District Judge, Baroda. The sale deed with another Government Enterprise Company, copy of index shown as respondent no. 1 and 2 were paying rent in the year 2000 and award for land acquired under Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had been pointed out to District Court as table shown as under:

YearNotification/award Annexure Village Reason (Type) Price (Rs.) Per Sq. Mtr.

2002 G Asoj Sale deed 294/-

1995/2007 H Asoj Judgment 140/-

2000 I Asoj Rent 400/-

2000 J Alindra Rent 600/-

4. Learned advocate Mr. BS Patel submitted that in present group of petitions, Annexure A order passed by District Court, Baroda is under challenged on the ground it contrary to price/rent given by Company or fixed by Competent Court in other land Acquisition matters. Therefore, present petition is filed by petitioner. The petitioners have produced copy of order passed by Competent authority dated 13/9/2000 by way of draft amendment, which was allowed and annexed to Annexure K. Accordingly, prayer clause is also amended in para 10(AA). In amended prayer as referred above, petitioner demanded compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,50,000/- per Hector to the claimant.

5.













































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top