Valuations by Expert Committees are essential in determining adequate compensation for land acquisition, reflecting market realities rather than outdated assessments.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA K. VISHEN, J.

The issue involved in these appeals is common and hence, all the appeals are being heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The captioned group is arising out of the judgment and award dated 31.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar, district Sabarkantha in Land Acquisition Reference nos.2/2012 to 31/2012 whereby, the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’), has been rejected and thus, the market value determined by the Deputy Collector under section 11, came to be confirmed. Hence, the captioned appeals by the claimants.

3. Mr R. K. Mansuri learned advocate appearing for the claimants, while inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment, submitted that various issues were formulated namely; whether the claimants are entitled for additional compensation, if yes, at what rate permitted?; whether the claimants prove that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate? It is submitted that voluminous documentary evidence was produced on record, namely, the orders allotting residential plots by way of auction of the very same village; the market value determined by the District Level Valuation Committee, Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Valuation Committee’) of villages, Shravana, Gambhoi and Viravada. The Valuation Committee in the year 2001, determined the higher market value of the land for allotment to the telephone exchange of village Raigadh, compared to the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer while giving the award. It is submitted that the learned Judge, considered the evidence Exhs.33 to 43 and was of the opinion that the market value determined by the Valuation Committee, is for non-agricultural land (hereinafter referred to as ‘NA’); whereas, the land which has been acquired is agricultural land. It is next submitted that it is not in dispute that the Government has allotted the land at concessional rate to the weaker section and, therefore, the upset price which was determined for auctioning the plot was on a lower side. Otherwise, the prevalent market value was higher than the price which was offered in the auction. It is submitted that evidence, Exh.97, the judgment rendered in the Land Reference Case nos.322/1996 to 329/1996 was considered and the learned Judge, applied 10% appreciation and the amount derived was Rs.23.84 per sq. mtr. Applying and accepting the said formula, the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, was confirmed.

3.1 It is further submitted that Exhs.33 to 39 are all the orders passed by the concerned authority determining the market value ranging from Rs.219 to Rs.254 per sq. mtr. When there was readily available market price, the learned Judge, ought not to have considered the judgment and award passed in the year 1996 for acquisition in question. In fact, various orders passed and the market value determined by the State Government ought to have been appreciated and accepted. Besides, the relevant piece of evidence available was Exh.76 i.e. the market value determined by the Valuation Committee of the land allotted for the purpose of telephone exchange and staff quarters. The Committee, has determined Rs.490/- per sq. mtr. for bigger parcel of land admeasuring 2000 sq. mtrs..

3.2 It is sub