Back
2016 Supreme(Guj) 1350
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.R. Shah, A.S. Supehia, JJ.
Gandabhai Bharatbhai Bharwad and Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Special Land Acquisition Officer and Ors. - Respondents
First Appeal Nos. 1448 of 2016 and 1561 of 2015
Decided On : 22-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ankur Y. Oza
For the Respondents: Minoo Shal
Headnote:
Land Acquisition - Compensation - Land Acquisition Act - Section 4, Section 6, Section 11, Section 18, Section 23, Section 23A - The court discussed the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, particularly focusing on the determination of compensation and the entitlement to solatium under the Act. The court emphasized the importance of considering previous judgments and awards in determining compensation and highlighted the relevance of the proximity of the acquired lands and the time gap between Section 4 notifications in assessing comparability. The court also clarified the entitlement to solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquisition of land for the storage of petroleum products. The Reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 120 per sq. mtr. The acquiring body and original claimants appealed the decision, disputing the comparability of previous judgments and the entitlement to solatium.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Reference Court did not err in relying on its previous judgment and award in determining compensation. It also held that the judgment and award from a different case were not comparable due to the distance and time gap between Section 4 notifications. The court clarified the entitlement to solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act.
Issues: The issues included the comparability of previous judgments, the entitlement to solatium, and the excess acquisition of land, which was not considered in the appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the relevance of previous judgments in determining compensation, the proximity and time gap between Section 4 notifications, and the entitlement to solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act.
Final Decision: Both appeals were dismissed, and the original claimants were granted entitlement to 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act on the entire amount of compensation.
M.R. Shah, J.
1. As both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kheda-Nadiad-learned Reference Court passed in LAR No. 180 of 2002, both these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kheda-Nadiad passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 180 of 2002, by which, learned Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation and has awarded compensation at Rs. 120 per sq. mtr. with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act, the appellant-original claimants have preferred First Appeal No. 1448 of 2016.
2.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court-learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kheda-Nadiad passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 180 of 2002, by which, learned Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation and has awarded compensation at Rs. 120 per sq. mtr with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act the appellant-acquiring body has preferred First Appeal No. 1561 of 2015.
3. The land situated at village Kanera District Kheda came to be acquired under the provision of Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") for the purpose of storage of petroleum products of Bharat Petroleum Company Limited (acquiring body). That the notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be published on 19.05.1999. That the notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 10.05.2000. That the Special Land Acquisition Officer declared the award under Section 11 of the Act on 23.03.2002 awarding compensation determining the market price of the lands at Rs. 15 per sq. mtr. That at the instance of the original claimants, Reference under Section 18 of the Act was made to the learned District Court, Kheda, which was numbered as LAR No. 180 of 2002, which was subsequently transferred to learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kheda at Nadiad.
3.1. That the reference was opposed by the original opponent including acquiring body by filing written statement at Exhs. 22 and 12 respectively. That the learned Reference Court framed the issue at Exh. 16.
3.2. On behalf of the claimants, one Gandabhai Bharwad came to be examined on oath at Exh. 25. The original claimants heavily relied upon the previous judgment and award passed by the Reference Court passed in LAR No. 122 of 2001 (Exh. 27) and the previous judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR No. 375 of 1994 (Exh. 47).
3.3. On behalf of the original opponents one Vinodkumar Surendra Rao executive of acquiring body was examined at Exh. 39.
3.4. That considering the previous judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAR No. 122 of 2001 as comparable as the same was with respect to the lands acquired of very village and relying upon the said judgment and award, by impugned judgment and award the learned Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation and has awarded compensation at Rs. 120 per sq. mtr with all other statutory benefits which may be available under the Act.
3.5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court determining and awarding the compensation for the lands acquired at Rs. 120 per sq. mtr, both acquiring body as well as original claimants have preferred present First Appeals.
4. Ms. Minoo Shah, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of acquiring body and Shri Ankur Oza, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the original claimants.
5. Ms. Shah, learned advocate for the acquiring body has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge has erred in following decision in LAR No. 122 of 2001. It is submitted that the learned Jud
