Deputy Collector and Others vs Kantilal Bapujibhai Patel

Honourable Mr. Justice G.R. Udhwani

The appellant nos. 1 and 2, who are officers of different departments of the State Government as also the State Government being appellant no. 3, are aggrieved by an award dated 30.12.2010 made by learned Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Godhra, District-Panchmahals, awarding Rs. 91.20 per sq.mtr. as additional compensation as also solatium u/s 23 (1-A) and Section 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act"), with interest on aggregate amount of acquired lands at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of taking over the possession till one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a.. By the impugned award, learned Judge also awarded additional compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. u/s 23 (1-A) and 30% solatium u/s 23 (2) of the Act with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of taking over possession till one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till its realization u/s 28 of the Act. Having heard learned AGP for the appellants, the only contention raised before us is that the Referral Court erred in relying upon the ''jantri'' rate which was in respect of irrigated land and, therefore, has passed an award on higher side. Learned advocate invited our attention to paragraph 15 of the impugned award. After recording the arguments of the parties, Referral Court relied upon ''jantri'' published in official gazette showing Rs. 25/- per sq.mtr. as the rate of the property situated at Village-Chopda, Taluka-Lunawada, in the year 2006. It also recorded that as per changed ''jantri'' the property situated at Village-Chopda is valued at Rs. 160 per sq.mtr. in 2006. Thereafter, on consideration that Section 4 notification was of the year 2003 and ''jantri'' rate was of the year 2006, Referral Court provided 10% permissible decrease and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 112/- per sq.mtr. for the lands of which possession was taken in the year 2003. The amount of Rs. 20.80 per sq.mtr. which was awarded by the acquiring authority was given set-off and thus net figure arrived at by the Court was Rs. 91.20 per sq.mtr.

It is not in dispute that for the same purpose adjoining land was acquired in respect of which Land Acquisition Reference No. 79 of 2003 was instituted and after appreciation of evidence and considering various aspects the Referral Court awarded Rs. 250/- per sq.mtr. Assuming that the Referral Court could not have relied upon previous award, what can be noticed is that the Referral Court has only awarded Rs. 112/- per sq.mtr. against Rs. 250/- awarded for acquisition of adjacent land. Further assuming that the land in question was not an agricultural land then also the award which is less than 50% of the value of adjacent land cannot be said to be on higher side. Reliance is placed by learned AGP on the contents of Village Form No. 7/12 produced before the lower Court to show that they were not irrigational land. In our view, since the award passed by the Referral Court is less than half the value of the adjacent land, which according to the appellant was irrigational land, the fact that the land in question was not irrigated land is already taken care of and does not require any interference by this Court in this appeal. In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in these appeals. Therefore, the appeals are required to be dismissed and accordingly they are dismissed summarily. It is unfortunate that the impugned judgment and order dated 30.12.2010 is sought to be challenged by the State Government without any sincere application of mind and apparently with an oblique motive, without ever caring to deposit or paying the amounts of compensation due under the impugned award even as the execution proceedings are stated to be pending before the trial Court. The Law Officers in-charge of such matters could have easily realized that the public exchequer is incurring interest at the rate of 15% on the amounts payable to the original claimants while they indulge in luxury of proliferating litigation without any genuine cause of action. It is high time that individual responsibility of such officers in-charge of deciding the course of further litigation is fixed and they are saddled with responsibility of personally paying additional amounts of interest and cost which would otherwise be paid from the public exchequer. A copy of this order shall be served upon the Secretary, Department of Finance in the State Government.