The court's decision emphasized the importance of accurately comparing land values, deducting market price, and calculating interest in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT :

A.J. Desai, J.

1. By way of present appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the original opponent No.2/Acquiring Body- Oil And Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as “O.N.G.C.”), the acquiring body has challenged the judgment and award dated 30.11.2019 passed by learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.1 to 2 of 2016, by which, the Reference Court has enhanced the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Collector from Rs.62/- per sq. mtr. to Rs.700/- per sq. mtr. (additional amount of Rs.638/- per sq. mtr.).

2. The appeal came to be admitted by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 15.03.2021. As per the order passed in civil application of the same date, the amount has been deposited before the Reference Court and subsequently as per the order dated 20.07.2021, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, 50% of the amount awarded has been disbursed among the respondent/original land owners. Record and proceedings have also been called for and have reached to this Court.

3. The short facts arising from the record are as under:

3.1 Present appellant- O.N.G.C. intended to construct a tube well No. LJDE for its project at village- Langhanj, Taluka & District- Mehsana and accordingly, the Land Acquisition Officer issued a Notification under Section 4 of the Act on 17.05.2010. As provided under the Act, the Notification No.6, under Section 6 of the Act was issued within two years i.e. 12.11.2010. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the price of land at Rs.62/- per sq. mtr. and declared award under Section 11 on 07.09.2012.

3.2 The original land owners/opponent, whose lands were sought to be acquired sought reference under Section 18 of the Act and accordingly, the Collector referred the matter to competent civil court at Mehsana. The claimants sought an enhancement compensation to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtrs. mainly on the ground that the Government had acquired a piece of land of village- Langhanj in the year-2013 for construction in response to a demand made by Mehsana District Co-operative Bank and as per the District Land Valuation Committee headed by the Collector for determining the market price of the village had come to the conclusion holding the price of the said land as Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtr. The claimant has also relied upon the judgment delivered by the Reference Court and confirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in which, the land of nearby village namely Gozaria was acquired for Sujalam Sufalam Irrigation Scheme and the date of notification issued under Section 4 for the said village Gozaria was also of the year-2009. The claim was opposed by the present appellant.

3.3 The original claimants have examined two witnesses whereas respondent has examined one witness. Several documentary evidences were produced by both the parties. The Reference Court only relied upon the report of District Land Valuation Committee, Mehsana wherein the price of Langhanj village was fixed at Rs.2,000/- per sq. mtr. in the year-2013. The Reference Court noticed that the land which is sought to be acquired was agricultural land and was a meager size and hence reduced the same to 50%. Thereafter, considering the valuation relates to year-2013 and the notification issued in the case on hand of the year-2009, further deducted 30% and ultimately came to the conclusion that the correct price of the land acquired would be Rs. 700/- per sq. mtr and not Rs.62/- per sq. mtr. as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, this Appeal at instance of acquiring body against the enhancement of compensation.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Ajay R. Mehta appearing for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Judge has committed error in comparing the land of the village for which report was produced at Exh.24, at the instance of the claimants sin