IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
NISHA M. THAKORE, J.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. - Applicants
Versus
GANDALAL KANABHAI @ MANJIBHAI KANABHAI – Respondent
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 343 of 2012
Decided On : 04-12-2024
(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 54, 23(1)(A), 23(2), 28 - Appeal against judgment and award for land acquisition - The trial court awarded compensation at Rs.30/- per Sq.Mtr. which was modified to Rs.40/- per Sq.Mtr. upon re-appreciation of evidence, following a previous award for similar lands in the same village. (Paras 1, 19)
(B) Appeal - Scope of review - The court found that the previous judgment had attained finality and no further interference was warranted in the current appeal by the State Authorities. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The appellant-original claimant challenged the compensation awarded for land acquired for the 'œOzat-2 Irrigation Project'. The Reference Court initially awarded Rs.30/- per Sq.Mtr. The appellant sought enhancement based on a previous award for similar land.
Findings of Court:
The court found the Reference Court erred in limiting compensation to Rs.30/- per Sq.Mtr. and determined it should be Rs.40/- per Sq.Mtr., consistent with previous judgments.
Issues: The main issue was whether the compensation awarded was adequate given the market value of similar lands.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Reference Court should have considered previous awards for similar lands and that the compensation should reflect fair market value.
Result: Appeal partly allowed; compensation increased to Rs.40/- per Sq.Mtr.
JUDGMENT :
NISHA M. THAKORE, J.
[1.] By this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants- State Authorities/original opponents have challenged judgment and award dated 31.12.2009 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Junagadh in Land Reference Case No.1362 of 1999.
[1.1] By the said impugned judgment and award, the opponents therein were directed to pay additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.2500/- (Rs.3,000/- market value – Rs.500/- already awarded = Rs.2500/-) per Are for the irrigated land to the applicant of the reference petition. The claimant was also held entitled to get increase upon the market price at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification published under Section 4 of the Act till the date of award with interest as per Section 23(1)(A) of the Act and 30% solatium upon the market price with interest as per Section 23(2) of the Act. The original claimant was also entitled to get 9% interest upon the compensation from the date of taking over possession for one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% interest per annum from the subsequent year till realization. The trial court has further directed that interest is awarded on the aggregate amount of compensation by the opponents and opponents to bear their own costs.
[2.] Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, learned AGP Ms. Tanushree Shrimal appearing for the appellants, under instructions, has submitted that the appeal was preferred by the original claimants seeking enhancement against the award passed by the reference court, which is under challenge in the present appeal preferred by the State Authorities. The aforesaid appeal being First Appeal No.2221 of 2010 was partly allowed by this Court vide oral judgment dated 12.02.2014, whereby the impugned judgment and award dated 31.12.2009 in Land Reference Case No.1362 of 1999 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Juanagadh was modified and the original claimant was held entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs.10/- sq. mtrs. (Rs.40/- Rs.30/-). She has further submitted that the aforesaid order has attained finality as no further challenge is made by the appellants-State Authorities. She has, therefore, urged this Court to pass appropriate order.
[3.] Learned advocate Mr. Nitin Amin has appeared for the respondent, and has fairly accepted that the present appeal challenges the very same impugned judgment and award and the issue involved has already been decided by this Court in First Appeal No.2221 of 2010 on 12.02.2014, therefore, no interference is required to be called for. He has further submitted that the aforesaid order has not been taken in appeal before higher forum. He has, therefore, urged to dismiss the present appeal as the same is not maintainable.
[4.] I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the aforesaid judgment. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant observations of the Co-ordinate Bench while deciding the issue involved, which read as under:
2. The land belonging to the appellant-original claimant, situated at Village Badalpur, Taluka and District Junagadh, was acquired by the State Government for the public purpose of “Ozat-2 Irrigation Project”. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 13.10.1993 followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act dated 07.05.1994. Proceedings so initiated, culminated into the award under Section 11(1) of the Act, which was made and declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 16.02.1995. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.5/-
The court determined that compensation for acquired land must reflect fair market value, aligning with previous awards for similar properties.
Claimants may be awarded a higher compensation than claimed, as established by the Supreme Court in various cases.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of fair compensation for acquired lands based on the prevailing market rate and the evidence presented to establish the market va....
The court upheld the Reference Court's enhanced compensation for acquired land, emphasizing the need for evidence-based valuation while modifying the interest rate to 9% per annum from the date of aw....
Compensation for acquired land must reflect its fair market value, including consideration of agricultural yield and proper escalation adjustments based on market conditions at the time of acquisitio....
Land Acquisition - Claimant is entitled to get rental compensation in this case when the claimant is dispossessed prior to issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the correct classification of acquired land as perennially irrigated, leading to the entitlement of enhanced compensation, rental compensation, and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.