The court upheld the Reference Court's valuation of agricultural land compensation, emphasizing reliance on expert opinions and valid market evidence in determining fair compensation under the Land Acquisition Act.

JUDGMENT :

Hemant M. Prachchhak, J.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter be referred to as “the Act”) challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 24.03.2017 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa, District: Banaskantha in Land Acquisition Reference No.75 of 2012 (main case) and other allied matters. By the said common judgment and award, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference and has enhanced the amount of compensation determining the market value of land acquired at the rate of Rs.157/- paise per square meter. Apart from the said enhancement amount of compensation, the learned Judge has also awarded consequential statutory benefits of solatium along with the interest.

2. Brief facts of the present case are that the agriculture lands of respondents - original claimants situated at Village Paladi, Taluka: Deesa, District Banaskantha have been permanently acquired for the purpose of constructing new broad gauze railway line of Patan – Bhildi vide Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 2009. For the purpose of acquisition, the award has been declared as per rate of Rs. 24.25 per square meter on 11.02.2011 and paid compensation to the respondents. It is contended that thereafter, the original claimants had preferred a reference cases before the Special Land Acquisition Officer claiming being as original value of the land should be Rs. 1000/- per square meter, but it was decided only Rs. 24.25 per square meter. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued.

2.1 That the amount of award on the basis of the comparison with the land bearing survey No. 26, approach road and road land etc. In respect of these lands, the award of Rs. 431 per square meter following the rates of year 2015 as per exhibit 21 based on such land has been converted into non-agriculture situated near the road.

2.2 The appellant has filed the written statements in each reference cases wherein it has been stated that the fixed compensation is just and proper after considering quality of the acquired land and surrounding sale transactions. At the time of hearing, claimant has not produced any single documents to decide the rate of compensation and the dispute nor objection has been raised.

2.3 After hearing the respective parties and considering the evidence on record and after framing the issues and after considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of O. Janardhan Reddy vs. Special Deputy Collector reported in 1994 6 SCC 456 , The General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. reported in 2008 0 SCC 1154, Trishala Jain and Anr. vs. State of Uttarachal and Anr. reported in 2011(6) SCC 47 , State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kashiram (dead) by L.Rs. reported in 2010(14) SCC 506 and Prabhakar Ragunath Patil and Ors vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2010 (13) SCC 104, the learned Judge has partly allowed the reference and directed the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.157/- per square meter for the acquired agricultural land considering the rate of Rs.431/- per square meter in favour of the claimant.

3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 - claimant and learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.2.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that learned Judge has committed an error in law and facts in considering the rate Rs.431/- per square meter as compensation. It is submitte