The determination of land acquisition compensation must consider expert valuations and local market conditions, reaffirming that inappropriate comparisons can lead to erroneous awards.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. All these appeals involve common questions on law and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and award dated 16.09.2005 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mehsana, (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.2102 of 2003, 2103 of 2003, 2634 of 2003 to 2638 of 2003, 60 of 2004 and 2091 of 2003 to 2097 of 2003, whereby the References were partly allowed and the present appellant - O.N.G.C. was held liable to pay additional amount of compensation to the original claimants along with interest and costs.

3. The facts in brief are that the competent authority under the LAND ACQUISITION ACT made a proposal for permanent acquisition of the lands belonging to the respondents-original claimants. The notification under Section 4 has been published by the competent authority under the Act on 13.12.1994 and 30.11.1993 respectively. After following due procedure, the lands came to be acquired. Award came to be passed by the competent authority fixing the amount of compensation.

3.1. However, being dissatisfied with the award, the original claimant raised dispute, by way of references. The Reference Court partly allowed the same by way of the impugned judgment and awards awarding Rs.154/- and Rs.140/- per sq. mtr. respectively. Hence, these appeals.

4. Heard Mr. Khare, learned advocate and Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the claimants and Ms. Roshni Patel for respondent No.2.

5. Mr.Akshat Khare, learned Counsel and Mr. Meena, learned Counsel for the appellant-ONGC, have submitted that the Reference Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the original claimants would be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs.154/- per sq. mtr. and Rs.140/- per sq. mtr. over and above Rs.8.00 per sq. mtr. and Rs.5.00 sq. mtr. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned advocates further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have held that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly awarded the compensation.

5.1 Learned advocates for the appellant have also submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is not based on any cogent and reliable evidence. It is also submitted that reliance placed by reference court on the judgment of village Becharaji and Henduva-Hanumant is not relevant since distance between two villages is over 10 kms and 15 kms. and therefore, the impugned judgment and awards passed by the reference Court deserve interference by this Court.

5.2 Mr. Khare, learned Advocate and Mr. Meena, learned Advocate for the appellant have relied upon the map which shows the distance between Deloli and Heduva Hanumant and distance between Deloli and Gamanpura and the order passed by this Court in respect of village Gamanpura.

5.3 Learned advocates for the appellant urge before the Court that present appeals may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court may be quashed and set aside.

6. On the other hand, Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the Reference Court after perusing the evidence on record passed the award and therefore, the award of the Reference Court is just and proper and no interference is called for. Mr. Prajapati, learned Advocate, has also submitted that the Reference Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award.

6.1 Mr. Prajapati, learned Advocate, has submitted that considering the facts of the case and after going through all the relevant document