IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that compensation for land acquisition must be consistent across similar jurisdictions, applying a 30% reduction for non-municipal areas.

JUDGMENT :

Nisha M. Thakore, J.

1. Since both these appeals challenge the common judgment and award, the same are heard and decided by this common judgment

2. The present appeal is preferred at the instance of the State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 30.04.2008 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Mahesana in Land Acquisition References Nos.195 of 2005 to 213 of 2005, under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (hereinafter to be referred as, “the Act”). By the said impugned judgment and award, the reference court has partly allowed the reference cases directing the opponents-State Authorities to pay additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.317/- per sq. mtrs. in respect of the acquired lands, over and above amount of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act. The opponents are further directed to pay additional amount of compensation at the rate of 12% on such additional amount of compensation awarded to the claimants in terms of Section 23(1-A) of the Act. The opponent-State is also directed to pay the amount of solatium at the rate of 30% on the additional amount of compensation under Section 23(2) of the Act. The directions are also issued to pay interest on the additional compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking the possession or from the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act, whichever is earlier initially for the first year, and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till the realization of the amount of compensation, according to the provisions of Section 28 of the Act.

3. Heard Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants-State Authorities and Mr. A.V. Prajapati appearing for the respondents-original claimants in the respective appeals.

4. At the outset, learned advocates have jointly submitted that the present appeals are squarely covered by the oral common judgment dated 22.06.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in bunch of appeals preferred by the State against the very same common judgment and award arising out of the cognate land reference cases.

5. Learned advocate for the respondents- original claimants has referred to the order dated 08.07.2011 passed in First Appeal No.3753 of 2007 and allied matters, and has submitted that inadvertently the group of appeals being First Appeal Nos.1024 of 2010 to 1040 of 2010 were not reflected in the aforesaid oral common judgment dated 22.06.2011 passed in First Appeal No.3753 of 2007 and allied matters, and therefore, the Hon’ble Division Bench vide order dated 08.07.2011 had allowed the note for speaking to minutes thereby including the First Appeal Nos.1024 of 2010 to 1040 of 2010 to be covered by the said oral common judgment dated 22.06.2011.

6. Learned advocates have further invited my attention to the relevant observations, more particularly, as recorded in para 3 which refers to the facts of the aforesaid group of appeal being First Appeal Nos.1024 of 2010 to 1040 of 2010 filed by the State challenging the very impugned common judgment and award of the reference court passed in the cognate land reference cases. By making the aforesaid submissions, learned advocates for the respective parties have jointly urged to pass appropriate order in view of the fact that the said oral common judgment dated 22.06.2011 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court has attained finality in absence of any challenge being made by the original claimants before the higher forum.

7. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award, admittedly the challenge in the First Appeal Nos.1024 of 2010 to 1040 of 2010 at the instance of State arising out of the same common impugned judgment and award of the reference court, has been examined by the Hon’ble Division Bench, whereby the appeals of the State have bee