Point of law : Reference Court is required to decide the respective References afresh by permitting the parties including the claimants to lead their evidence and thereafter to determine the prayer for enhancement in the compensation on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence which may be lead.

ORDER :

Since all the captioned appeals are cognate involving similar facts and same controversy in the issue, they were heard together and could be treated for disposal by this common order.

1.1 Heard learned advocate Mr.Nitin Amin for the appellant in all the appeals and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manraj Barot for the respondent – State and its authorities.

2. Respective appeals are filed by the appellant-claimant concerned to challenge the judgment and award of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula, whereby Reference of the claimants came to be rejected. For instance, the first captioned First Appeal No.2101 of 2021 is directed against judgment and award dated 21st June, 2018 passed by the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula in Land Reference Case No.322 of 2017 rejecting the said land reference case. The relevant details of all the other appeals are given in the tabular form below.

3. The basic facts as taken from the first captioned First Appeal, are that the land bearing Survey No.112/2 Paiki admeasuring 9726 Sq. Mtrs. at Village Bhakshi, Rajula Taluka of Amreli District owned and possessed by the appellant-claimant which was a piyat land, came to be acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act for the public purpose of Dhatarwadi-1 Irrigation Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 01st June, 2002 whereas Section 6 Notification was issued to culminate into the award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 29th January, 2005 under Section 11 of the Act.

3.1 The claimant thereafter preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Act before the District Court as he was not satisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer which was Rs.30/- per Sq. Mtrs.

3.2 The Reference Court proceeded to consider the Reference. Written statement appears to have been filed at Exh.7. Thereafter issues were framed which were thus,

(i) Whether the applicant proves that the amount paid by the Land Acquisition Officer for the land acquired by the Government is inadequate as alleged?,

(ii) Whether applicant is entitled to additional compensation? If yes, how much?,

(iii) Whether the opponents proves that the amount of compensation paid by the land acquisition officer for the land acquired by the government is adequate and therefore the applicant is not entitled to get additional compensation as alleged? and

(iv) Whether the opponents prove that the present land reference case preferred by the applicant is barred by the limitation act and therefore not tenable before this court? All the issues were answered in negative by the Reference Court.

3.3 It was recorded that the land reference case came to be transferred to the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajula, whereupon the court had served notice to the claimant at Exh.27. It was recorded that the claimant however remained absent before the court and did not lead any oral or documentary evidence. Reference of the Supreme Court’s decision in Khazan Singh (dead) by L.Rs. v. Union of India [AIR 2002 SC 726] was made to observed that Reference cannot be dismissed for want of presence of the claimant. Finally,