The court affirmed that compensation for land acquisition should be determined using comparative market value and yield method, especially when similar lands are involved.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)

1. In all these group of appeals filed at the instance of the State, under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the challenge is made to the judgment and award dated 20th September, 2018 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Land Reference Case nos.367 of 2007 to 390 of 2007 (Main Land Reference Case no.367 of 2007). Since all the aforesaid reference cases were disposed of by the said common judgment and award, all these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. In nutshell, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeals at the instance of the State are summarized hereunder :-

2.1 The proposal for acquiring various parcels of land situated at village Jiragadh, Taluka Jodiya, District Jamnagar was declared by issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the public purpose i.e. for the construction of Aji-4 Irrigation projects. The said notification was published in the Government Gazette on 26th April, 2001 followed by the Notification under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on 11th May, 2002 (Sic. 18th May, 2002). The affected persons, mainly, the land owners were issued notices and after extending the opportunity of hearing, the competent authority had passed an award under Section 11 of the Act being Award no.5 of 2000 on 18th January 2006, whereby the amount awarded as compensation for the acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs.4.70 paisa per sq. mtr. for irrigated lands as the market value of the acquired land.

2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the determination of the aforesaid award amount by the competent authority, the respective land owners have raised reference before the Collector, under Section 18 of the Act seeking enhancement of compensation. The aforesaid land reference applications were registered as Land Reference Case nos.368 of 2007, 369 of 2007, 371 of 2007, 374 of 2007, 377 of 2007, 382 of 2007, 384 of 2007 and 390 of 2007, before the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge at Jamnagar.

3. The learned Judge upon appreciation of the oral, as well as, documentary evidence brought on record by the original applicants, as well as, taking into consideration the documentary evidence brought on record by the respondent authorities, partly allowed the reference by common judgment thereby awarding Rs.50.30 per sq. mtr. in case of Jirayat land and Rs.75.40 per sq. mtr. in case of Bagayat land followed by the consequential benefits envisaged under Section 23(1)(A) and 23(2) of the Act. The Reference Court had also awarded proportionate costs to be realized from the respondent. Hence, these appeals.

4. Heard Mr. Adityasinh Jadeja and Mr. Akash Chhaya, learned AGPs for the appellant – State and Mr. K.M. Sheth, learned advocate on record for the respective respondents – original applicants.

5. During the course of hearing, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have invited our attention to the reasons assigned by the learned Judge. It is submitted that only comparative instance, which has been brought on record by the original claimant was the judgment and order dated 12th July, 2017 passed by the learned 6th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Land Reference Case nos.42 of 2006 to 66 of 2006 awarding additional amount of Rs.50/- per sq. mtr.

6. It was submitted by Mr. Sheth, learned advocate appearing for the respondent – original land owners that the aforesaid judgment and award of Reference Court was challenged by the State in an appeal under Section 54 of the Act before this Court, which was registered as First Appeal no.121 of 2019 and allied matters. The reliance was placed on the order dated 20th July, 2023 passed by the co-ordinate Bench, whereby by common CAV Judgment, the aforesaid appeals preferred by the State were dismissed.

7. Learned AGPs for the a