Compensation for land acquisition must rely on credible evidence, avoiding inflated awards based on inadequate comparative analysis.

JUDGEMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr.Prajapati waives service of notice. The question being very short, we have decided to determine the same at this admission stage only.

2. This group of appeals arises from the award of 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehesana dated 3rd October 2012 in the following factual background.

3. A proposal to acquire the land situated at village Malosana, Taluka Vijapur, District Mahesana for the construction of Dharoi canal was made and appellant No.1 acquired the same following the legal provisions. Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 29th January 2008 and notification under section 6 of the said Act was published on 15.4.2008. In Land Acquisition Case No.36/06, award was passed under section 11 of the Act on 12th May, 2009 and the compensation of such land was given at the rate of Rs.11 per sq. meter.

4. Aggrieved by such award, the claimants had preferred references under section 18 of the Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.500 per sq. meter. The Court had taken into account all evidences oral as well as documentary adduced by both the sides and after detailed hearing of the parties, adjudicated the issues to award additional amount of Rs.200.68 per sq. meter by its judgment and award dated 3rd October 2012.

5. Aggrieved State has preferred these appeals challenging the award of the Reference Court on various grounds, chief amongst the same being that the court has based its judgment on the report of the Valuation Committee. There are no other evidences for granting additional compensation. It is also the say of the appellant that mere dependence of the court on the previous award without ascertaining the comparable facts and other details of the land also makes such award vulnerable.

6. We have heard learned AGP Mr.Gandhi who has fervently made his submissions challenging the award of the Reference Court. It is contended that the District Valuation Committee's report dated 20th January 2004 is in relation to village Malosana where the land was non­agricultural land. Amount of Rs.216 per sq. meter awarded therein was on the basis of the location level, frontage, etc. He further urged that due to commercial exigency, amount of Rs.250 per sq. meter had been awarded, that surely cannot be made the basis by the Reference Court in the instant case. He further urged that the area acquired was 8000 sq. meters in the case of Malosana whereas in the instant case, the land is 23000 sq. meters. Yet another aspect he has harped upon is that the notification under section 4 of the Act in the case of Malosana was dated 20th December 2004 whereas in the instant case it was issued on 29th January 2008.

Though the period between the two notifications is merely 3 years and 1 month, the Court has taken into consideration period of 4 years and accordingly granted 40% rise. He further urged that in the instant case, when the land is agricultural land, the minimum difference of 30% although is taken into consideration which ought to have been much more. Reliance is placed on a decision rendered in the case of State of Gujarat v. Amaji Mohanji Thakore , 2010 (3)