The court may consider the judgment pertaining to lands of the adjoining village and acquired for the same project for fixing the just and reasonable market value of the acquired lands.

JUDGMENT :

(A.S. Supehia, J.)

1. As the issues involved in all the captioned appeals are the same and the challenge in all the appeals is also to a selfsame judgment and award passed by the 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. These First Appeals emanate from judgment and award passed by learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Mehsana, in Land Reference Case No.1499 of 2011, 1550 of 2011 and allied matters. The land of Village-Nugar, Taluka & District-Mehsana, which were subject matter of reference, were acquired for the public purpose of Mehsana By-pass Highway for which Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for the sake of brevity) was published in official gazette on 31.7.2008 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 2nd May 2009. After hearing the respective parties and examining the facts as well as oral evidence, Reference Court enhanced compensation from Rs.30 per sq.mtr. as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for road touch land to Rs.2044.64 per sq.mtr. and Rs.25 per sq.mtr. for remaining land to Rs.2453 per sq.mtr.

3. Thus, it appears that the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana partly allowed all the Land Acquisition References and granted additional compensation at the rate of Rs.2069.64 per sq.mtr, which after deducting the compensation of Rs.25/- per sq.mtr as already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, comes to Rs.2044.64/- per sq.mtr for the agricultural land which is not road touch and Rs.2483.56/- per sq. mtr, which after deducting the compensation of Rs.30/- per sq.mtr as already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, comes to Rs.2053.56/- per sq.mtr for the road touch agricultural land.

4. Learned AGP, Mr.Jadeja appearing for the State authorities has submitted that the Court below has seriously erred in awarding additional compensation on higher side, over and above the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that the Court below has not appropriately considered the evidence, which has surfaced on record. It is submitted that the Reference Court has fallen in error in discarding the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer and without assigning any cogent and convincing reasons, the amount of compensation could not have been enhanced. It is submitted that the Reference Court, without ascertaining any award having been passed in the adjoining village or same village and, without considering any comparable instances, the amount could not have been enhanced. Thus, the award is required to be quashed and set aside. Thus, learned AGP has submitted that the impugned judgment and award is required to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Prajapati has vehemently opposed all the appeals and submitted that no error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have been committed by the Reference Court in passing the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Prajapati has submitted that the Reference Court has primarily considered judgment and award passed by the Reference Court with regard to the lands, which are acquired in the adjoining Village-Panchot for the very same purpose and, accordingly, after deducting 10% with regard to difference of notification, amount of additional compensation is precisely fixed. Today, by order of even date, this Court has confirmed the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court with regard to acquisition of land for Village-Panchot. The Reference Court has considered that for the land acquired of Village-Panchot, Section 4 Notification was published on 11.2.2009, whereas for the land acquired for Village-Nugar, Notification has been published on 31.7.2008. Hence, after determining the land at par with the land acquired for Village-Panchot, Reference Court has deducted 10% for the difference of si