Ajitsinh Andubha vs Spl. Laq Officer and Another

D.N. Patel, J.—These aforesaid First Appeals arising out of the common judgment and award passed by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge, Special Judge (L.A.R.), Ahmedabad (Rural), Ahmedabad dated 29.9.2001 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 2100 of 1996 to 2127 of 1996 (in 28 References).

It appears from the facts and circumstances of the case that the land in question, was acquired by the Government for Narmada Project (Main Canal) and therefore, Notification was published u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 11.2.1993. Thereafter, Section 6 Notification was published on 9.11.1994. The claims made by the claimants was as tall as Rs. 25/- per Sq.Mtr., whereas it was given by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.0.60Ps. per Sq.Mtr. Thereafter, aforesaid Reference Cases were preferred before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has awarded Rs. 5/- per Sq.Mtr. as additional compensation. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 5.60 Ps. It also appears that the learned trial Court has relied upon exhibit 31, 32 and 61 and has arrived at aforesaid decision.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the land situated at village Sarvar, Ta. Dhandhuka was acquired for the same purpose and the matter was arisen out of this Land Acquisition Reference Cases reached upto this Court and this Court in First Appeals No. 2384 of 2005 to 2389 of 2005 decided on 25.8.2005 for village Sarvar situated the very same taluka and the compensation was awarded at Rs. 17.10 Ps. per Sq.Mtr. It also appears that while deciding these First Appeals by the Division Bench of this Court, reliance was placed upon the decision rendered by this in First Appeal Nos. 1979 of 2005 to 1992 of 2005 (these First Appeals are arisen out of the acquisition of land situated at village Zaliya, situated in the same Taluka). Thus, on the basis of this judgment, in the First Appeals, aforesaid decision was rendered for village Sarvar and Rs. 17.10 Ps. was awarded.

Learned counsel appearing for both the sides, relied upon this decision and pointed out that the land in question, which is situated at Zanzarka village, Taluka Dhandhuka is comparable to the land situated at village Sarvar situated in the same taluka and therefore, it is submitted by the learned A.G.P. that Rs. 17.10 Ps. may be awarded in total.

I have perused the judgments, which are placed before this Court in First Appeal No. 2384 of 2002 to 2389 of 2002 and also looking to the map at Exhibit 61, it appears that the land in question, which is situated at village Zanzarka, Taluka Dhandhuka is comparable to the land situated at village Sarvar situated in the same taluka. It appears from the map, that both these lands are adjacent to each other and is having common boundaries. It also appears that looking to the earlier decision delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 26th August, 2005, in First Appeal No. 2384 of 2005 to 2389 of 2005, the price awarded by this Court for village Sarvar is at Rs. 17.10 Ps. Comparing Notifications under Sections 4 and 6, there is no much difference between Section 4 and 6 Notifications period of present case then that of decided cases. In the case of village Sarvar, Section 4 Notification was issued on 17.8.1992, whereas in present case, this date is 11th February, 1993. In that case also, the Land Acquisition Officer had granted Rs.0.60 Ps. per Sq.Mtr., which was ultimately fixed by the Division Bench of this Court at Rs. 17.10 Ps..

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that Section 4 Notification was issued in the present cases, under the Land Acquisition Act on 11.2.1993 is much closer of Section 4 Notification of village Sarvar (which was 17.8.1992). Thus, looking to the geographical proximity of two lands as well as looking to the proximity in time for issuance of Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, these two lands are comparable and therefore, it appears that the price awarded by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge and Special Judge (LAR), Ahmedabad (Rural) Ahmedabad, which is at Rs. 5.00 Ps., even an additional compensation deserves to be enhanced upto Rs. 17.10 Ps.

Learned counsel appearing for the claimants has relied upon the decision in the case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Ors. v. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and Anr. reported in 2001 (2) G.L.H. 583. Para 12 thereof is as under:

As we have said above, the High Court fell into error by reducing the quantum of compensation on this basis. The reduction has been made fro two reasons, one that the present acquisition is of a larger area and the second, the distance between the land under acquisition and in Ext. 16 is about 5 kms. With reference to the question of acquisition being of a larger area, the error is, when we scan, we find for the acquisition of each land owner, it could not be said that the acquisition is of a large area. Largeness is merely when each landholder''s land is clubbed together, then the area becomes large. Each landowner''s holdings are of small area. Even otherwise, visioning in the line with the submission for the State, we find Ext.16 is about hectares of land which cannot be said to be a small piece of land. So far, the other question of distance between the two classes of lands, that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimant unless there are some other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior. However, distance between the land under Ext. 16 and the present land even if they are 5 kms. apart, would not be relevant; the relevancy could be their distance from the Viramgam town. We find as per map produced by the State, the present acquired land is about 3 kms. away from it. This difference is not such as would lead to the reduction in the rate of compensation, specially on the facts of this case. In the present case, as we have recorded above, it has been found that the quality including potentiality of land between Ext.16 and the present one, are similar. No evidence has been led on behalf of the State to find any difference between the two. In view of this, the interference drawn by the High Court for reducing the compensation by Rs. 10 per Sq.Mtr. cannot be sustained. (Emphasis Supplied)

In view of this decision, it appears that if there is distance of 5 kms. then also the land is comparable with each other. Herein the present case, the land situated at village Sarvar, is adjacent land, having common boundaries with the land acquired of village Zanzarka and also looking to the date of Notification u/s 4, the case which has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court as stated herein above, is comparable with the facts of the present case and therefore, the amount is enhanced upto Rs. 17.10 Ps. per Sq.Mtr. with other benefits, which have been awarded by the learned trial District Court. These First Appeal are allowed to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.