AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Aravind Kumar, CJ
Though matters are listed for admission, by consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties, they are taken up together for final disposal.
Petitioners are the owners of different bits of land situated in Dhrafa village, Taluka Jamjodhpur, District Jamnagar, which came to be acquired for the purpose of Fulzer (Kotda Bavishi) Irrigation Scheme under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) by issuance of a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act on 19.03.1994 and followed by notification issued under Section 6 dated 28.09.1994. An award came to be passed on 09.01.1996 whereby compensation @ Rs.7.75 per sq.meter for irrigated land came to be awarded.
Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, some of the landowners filed an application under Section 18 of the Act seeking reference in Land Reference Case No.514 of 1996 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Lalpur, who allowed the reference and enhanced the compensation by judgment and award dated 09.01.2019 (Annexure-D). Petitioners filed applications on 04.04.2019 under Section 28A of the Act seeking for award of compensation similar to the compensation awarded by Civil Court in L.A.R. No.514 of 1996 contending inter alia that similarly placed persons and in respect of same notification the award has been passed by the Reference Court and as such, petitioners would also be entitled for similar compensation. However, said applications have been rejected by the impugned order / communication dated 17.12.2020 on the ground that judgment relied upon is relating to a different notification. Hence, these Special Civil Applications.
We have heard Mr.Tejas P. Satta, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Mr.K.M.Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the State.
Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Mr.Tejas P. Satta, learned counsel appearing for petitioners would contend that respondent authorities are not disputing of petitioners having filed the applications under Section 28A within the time prescribed under the proviso to Section 28A of the Act and only on the ground that order of the Reference Court which has been relied upon by petitioners is relating to a different notification thought not, the claim of petitioners has been erroneously rejected and as such, he prays for allowing the Special Civil Applications.
Per contra, Mr.K.M.Antani, learned Assistant Government Pleader would support the impugned order.
Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the notification under which the lands of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons came to be acquired which is at Annexure-B would clearly disclose that for the same purpose and under the same notification the lands came to be acquired of both petitioners as well as the land-losers who had approached the Civil Court seeking reference under Section 18. The marginal difference between petitioners and those who had approached the Civil Court is that the lands of petitioners have been described in Schedule-II to the notification, whereas the lands of those persons who had approached the Civil Court seeking reference is reflected in Schedule-I of the same notification. A perusal of the said notification which is at Annexure-D would indicate that purpose for which the lands described in Schedule-I and Schedule-II came to be acquired is same namely for irrigation scheme at Fulzar (Kotda Bavishi) and as such on this short ground itself, impugned communication is liable to be set aside and we do so.
In the light of the impugned communication being set aside, the claim of petitioner requires to be re-determined by the respondent by examining the applications of petitioners filed under Section 28A of the Act in accordance with law.
Hence, the following
ORDER
(i) Special Civil Applications are hereby allowed.
(ii) The impugned order / communication dated 17.12.2020 (Annexure-A in the respective petitions) are hereby quashed.
(iii) The matters are remitted back to the respondent with a direction to adjudicate the applications filed under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in accordance with law by keeping in mind the observations made hereinabove.
(iv) No orders as to costs.
(v) Pending application/s, if any, stands consigned to records.