Back
2014 Supreme(Guj) 291
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R.M. CHHAYA, J.
Aueshabibi Gulamhussain & Others – Appellants
Versus
Additional Land Acquisition Officer & Others – Defendants
First Appeal No. 6840 of 1995
Decided On : 30.1.2014
Ms. Archana Amin & Mr. G.M. Amin, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr. Alkesh Shah, AGP, Mr. Prashant G. Desai, Senior Advocate & Mr. Krunal Amin, Advocate for the Defendants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of just compensation under the Land Acquisition Act based on the potentiality of the acquired lands and the relevance of contemporaneous sale transactions in determining the market value.
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act, Section 54, Code of Civil Procedure Section 96 - 54, 96 - The court discussed the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly Section 54, and the Code of Civil Procedure Section 96. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the market value of the land under acquisition, the relevance of contemporaneous sale transactions, and the determination of just compensation based on the potentiality of the land.
Fact of the Case:
The lands belonging to the appellants were sought to be acquired by the State for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. After following the prescribed procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market price of the lands. The appellants raised a dispute and the Reference Court awarded a lower amount than claimed. The appellants appealed, arguing that the market value should be fixed at a higher rate based on similar acquisitions and evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lands under acquisition had potentiality and should be valued higher than the amount awarded by the Reference Court. The court referred to similar acquisitions and contemporaneous sale transactions to determine the market value at a higher rate of Rs. 85/- per sq. mtr.
Issues: The main issue was the determination of the market value of the acquired lands and whether the appellants were entitled to a higher compensation based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the evidence, including the relevance of contemporaneous sale transactions, the potentiality of the lands, and the determination of just compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the market value of the lands under acquisition was fixed at Rs. 85/- per sq. mtr. The appellants were entitled to solatium, interest, and other statutory benefits as per the provisions of the Act. Each party was to bear their own costs.
R.M. CHHAYA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against common judgment and award dated 10.9.1991 rendered by City Civil Court, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad u/s. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in Compensation Case No. 38 of 1988 and other allied compensation cases. It may be noted that the present appeal is as such directed against the Compensation Case No. 38 of 1988.
2. Heard Ms. Archana Amin for Mr. G.M. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no. 1 and Mr P.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Krunal Amin for respondent no. 2.
3. The facts arising in this appeal are as under:
4. That the lands belonging to the appellants original claimants were sought to be acquired by the State for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The lands belonging to the original claimants are situated in town planning scheme no. 24 area, being final plot no. 2/1 to 2/4 situated at village Rajpur Hirpur, Taluka City Ahmedabad. On perusal of the record it appears that the proposal to acquire the land was made by Deputy Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation on 23.5.1972. Considering the proposal so made, the lands belonging to the appellants original claimants were sought to be acquired by issuance of Section 4 notification in the month of September, 1973. After scrupulously following the procedure as prescribed under the Act the proceedings culminated into an award dated 23.9.1986. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market price of final plot no. 2/1 at Rs. 40/- per sq. mtr., Rs. 50/- per sq. mtr. for final plot no. 2/2, Rs. 45/- per sq. mtr. for final plot no. 2/3 and Rs. 50/- per sq. mtr. for final plot no. 2/4.
5. Being aggrieved by the said award the appellants-claimants raised dispute which came to be referred u/s. 18 to the Reference Court i.e. City Civil Court, Court No. 11, Ahmedabad and claimed Rs. 90/- to Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. The Reference Court by impugned common judgment and award dated 10.9.1991 was pleased to partly allow the Reference and awarded Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. together with solatium and other statutory benefits. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award the claimants have preferred the present appeal as aforesaid.
6. Ms. Amin, learned Counsel for the appellants has at the outset submitted that the impugned judgment and award is the common judgment and award which was the subject matter of First Appeal No. 2196 of 1993 to First Appeal No. 2201 of 1993. Mr. Amin further submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court (Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.H. Kadri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.K. Buch (as Their Lordships then were) by judgment and order dated 10.5.2000 after appreciating the evidence on record were pleased to allow the said appeal filed by other claimants under the same acquisition and have determined the market price of the land under acquisition at Rs.85/-per sq. mtr. Ms. Amin therefore submitted that the land under acquisition in this appeal and the lands which were acquired were similar and identical and therefore the appeal be allowed in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench and this Court may also fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 85/- per sq. mtr.
7. Mr. P.G. Desai, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. Krunal Amin and Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader though have supported the impugned judgment and award have not been able to point out that any different view is required to be taken in this appeal.
8. The Hon'ble Division Bench in the case of Heirs of Haji Mohmadhusein vs. Additional Land Acquisition Officer (Special) in First Appeal No. 2196 of 1993 and allied appeals have in paragraph nos. 7 to 12 observed thus:
“7. We have considered oral submissions advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties in light of evidence available on record. On perusal of the record of Reference Court, we found that Acquiring Body
