IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of providing sufficient evidence to support claims for compensation in land acquisition cases.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocate for the respective parties.

2. The appellants have preferred First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) read with Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act).

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha at Himatnagar in Land Reference Case No.941 of 1990.

4. The brief facts leading to filing this Appeal are as under :-

4.1 The appellants are the owner of the land bearing Block No.461 at village Agion, Taluka Himatnagar District Sabarkantha. The Deputy Collector and the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Himatnagar acquired the land under Section 18 of the Act. The questioned land was acquired for the project of Gujarat Electricity Board for the construction of Sub-Station of 220 KV, power Station and staff quarters. A notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 03.07.1989 and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 17.01.1989 fixing the price of the land under acquisition at the rate of Rs.220/- per acre for Block No.461, Rs.215/- per acre for Block No.462 and Block No.463 and Rs.1/- per acre for waste land.

4.2. The present appellants were not satisfied with the award and mainly on the ground that the amount of compensation is too low and the Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into account the potentiality of the land under acquisition of being conversion and use of non-agricultural purpose. The case of the appellants was that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into account the surrounding development, potentiality of the land and other relevant factors such as the land in question was situated on the National Highway No.8 and was surrounded by the Office of Irrigation Department, School, Hotel, Panchayat Office etc. The appellants have also contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not taken into account the quality and fertility of the land under acquisition for fixing the amount of compensation. The appellants claimed compensation for super structure of the Engine Room at the rate of Rs.25,000/- and for pipelines at the rate of Rs.10,000/- and for the price of different types of trees existing on the field and also for the standing crops on the date of taking possession on 17.10.1989.

5. Learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that the learned Reference Court has erred in not awarding additional compensation as claimed by the appellants. It is further submitted that the learned Reference Court has not properly appreciated the fact that the land in question is situated on the Himmatnagar Shamlaji National Highway. The lands are situated in prime location. The land is a fertile land and having substantial non-agricultural potentiality. The learned Reference Court has not properly appreciated the sale instances cited by the appellants vide Exhibits-44 and 114.

5.1. Learned advocate for the appellants has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat and Another Vs. Madhubai Gobarbhai and Another reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 125.

6. The learned advocate for respondent contended that the appellants failed to lead any evidence before the Special Land Acquisition Officer in proving their case and the contention was also raised to the effect that the land under acquisition was not surrounded by any industrial or commercial development and the village Agiol is situated at 10 kilometers’ distance from the City Himatnagar and the population of that village was approximately 2430 persons only. It is also contended that the amount fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper and the village was not fixed for the development.

7. The following common issues were framed by the learned Assistant Judge, Himatnagar vide Exhibit-6;

“1. Whether the compensation awarded to the claimant is inadequate? If yes, what