IMPORTANT POINT
The court modified the compensation for land acquisition based on equal treatment among claimants from adjoining villages, establishing entitlement to higher compensation.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The present appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, (henceforth “the Act”) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 at the instance of the original claimants seeking enhancement of the award amount as against the judgment and award dated 12.10.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Banaskantha, Palanpur in Land Reference Case No. 372 of 2000, which came to be disposed of along with group of land reference cases being L.A.R. Nos. 370 of 2000 to 383 of 2000.

1.1 By the said impugned judgment and award, the reference court has partly allowed the applications preferred by the original claimants-land owners thereby directing the opponents to pay the additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 21.86/- per sq. mtrs. for the acquired lands. The appropriate amount of compensation as fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the time of acquisition of their lands being paid was directed to be deducted from the aforesaid amount i.e. Rs. 21.86/- Rs. 2.05/ = Rs. 19.81/-. The reference court has further directed payment of additional compensation at the rate of 12% in light of Section 23(1A) of the Act and the amount of solatium at the rate of 30% on the additional amount of compensation as provided under Section 23(2) of the Act.

1.2 Apart from the aforesaid amount of compensation, the Reference Court has also awarded interest on the additional compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking permanent possession or from the date of issuing Notification under Section 4 of the Act, whichever is earlier for the first year, and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till realization of the aggregate amount as provided under Section 28 of the Act.

2. The relevant dates, which may be necessary for adjudication of the issue involved, are summarized as under:

2.1 The present appellants are the owner of the land situated in the sim of village-Manpura, Taluka-Deodar, District-Banaskantha, which was acquired by the respondent authorities for construction of canal under Narmada Canal Project. The Notification in this regard under Section 4 of the Act was published on 24.06.1997 and Section 6 Notification was published on 29.10.1997. The Special Land Acquisition Officer appointed under the Act, after following due process of law and after giving sufficient opportunities to the land owners, had declared the award under Section 11 of the Act on 28.12.1999. The market value of the acquired lands was determined at the rate of Rs. 2.05/- per sq. mtrs.

2.2 The claimants-land owners being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation moved reference before the appropriate authority, which came to be submitted before the court of learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur and were registered as Land Reference Case Nos. 370 of 2000 to 383 of 2000. The L.A.R. No. 370 of 2000 was treated as the main lead case. The aforesaid reference cases were consolidated and decided by common judgment dated 12.10.2013, including the present case under challenge being L.A.R. No. 372 of 2000, thereby fixing the additional amount of compensation of the land acquired at the rate of Rs. 21.86/- sq. mtrs. with consequential statutory benefits provided under the Act.

2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the amount of compensation being awarded on lower side, the original claimant-land owner has approached this Court under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, essentially praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation.

3. Before considering the case of the present appellants-original claimants, it is required to be noticed that present appeal has been filed after the delay of almost 2834 days. This Court vide order dated 07.03.2024 was pleased to condone the delay, by considering the grounds raised by the applicants and in light of the decisions of th