Courts must determine just compensation for land acquisition by referencing established market exemplars for comparable locales, applying a reasonable annual escalation rate to account for temporal gaps between notification dates to ensure fair and equitable valuation for the claimants.

ORDER

1. The captioned appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (‘the Act’, for short) have arisen from the common judgment and award dated 29.08.2005 passed in Land Reference Case Nos.2191 of 2003 to 2193 of 2003 ( treating L.R.C. No.2193 of 2003 as a lead matter) whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana partly allowed the reference cases and determined market price of acquired land in L.A.Q.Case No.59 of 1994 as Rs.150/- per sq mtr with statutory interest and solatium amount etc.

2. The questioned lands belong to Village Jebuva, Tal.Dist. Mahesana were acquired for the public purpose for ONGC whereby Notification under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published on 11.04.1995 and 24.06.1996 respectively. The LAQ Case was conducted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and declared the award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act and determined Rs.6.50/- per sq mtr for the acquired land. The claimants whose lands have been acquired being aggrieved claimed to refer the matter to the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act. Reference Court registered the land reference cases as mentioned hereinabove keeping the LAR No.2193 of 2003 as main matter and permitted the parties to lead the evidence and ultimately passed the award in aforesaid terms.

3. Being aggrieved, ONGC preferred these appeals.

4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Aishwarya Reddy for M/s.Trivedi & Gupta for the appellant and learned advocate Mr.Pinank Raiyani for Mr.J.K.Gandhi, learned advocate for the defendants.

5. Ms.Reddy referred to the judgment of coordinate Bench in the case of General Manager vs. Prajapati Hargovindbhai Ambaram (Decd. Thro LRs.) and others in F.A.No.1698 of 2006 and allied matters and submitted that the cooperate Bench pleased to determine the additional compensation at Rs.77/- per sq mtr for both irrigated and non-irrigated lands. In a land acquired in the year 1994 whereby Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 20.12.1994 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 26.12.1995 for the same village Hebuva and the purpose of acquisition was also public purpose and, therefore, it is submitted that determination of total compensation by the learned Reference Court is illegal, unjust and inappropriate and, therefore she has submitted that these appeals may be allowed. Ms.Reddy, learned advocate further submitted that decreetal amount already deposited before the trial Court.

6. Upon above submissions, she submitted that appeals may be allowed and appropriate order may be passed.

7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Bharat Vyas supports the argument of learned advocate Ms.Reddy for the appellants.

8. Mr.Raiyani, learned advocate for the defendants submitted that the learned Reference Court referred to decision in LAR Case No.316 to 318 of 2001 whereby acquisition was made for the same village in a Notification under Section 4 of the Act which was published on 03.09.1993. He would further submit that judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in these LAR cases though have been challenged before the High Court, no interference has been called for and thus the judgment impugned based upon judgment and award passed in those LAR is correct and just. He, therefore, would submit to dismiss these appeals.

9. In rejoinder, Ms.Reddy, learned advocate for the appellants, relying upon the judgment passed in First Appeal No.1603 of 2002 and allied matters, submitted that coordinate Bench of this Court dismissed the app