AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—The challenge in the above-referred appeals is to the common judgment and award dated 27/4/2007 rendered by learned Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Morbi in Land Reference Case Nos. 80 to 97 of 2000 [Main Land Reference Case No. 80 of 2000]. Therefore, these first appeals arising from the common impugned judgment and order rendered by the Reference Court are heard together and are being disposed of together.
Certain lands belonging to the Appellants - claimants, situated in village Juna Ghatila, Tal. Maliya, Dist. Rajkot came to be acquired for public purpose of Maliya Canal of Narmada Scheme. Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (''the Act'', for short) was published on dated 10/6/1993 and the notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 12/7/1994. Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry for fixation of amount of compensation u/s 11 of the Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer declared award dated 23/12/1996 and offered compensation @ Rs. 4,000/- per sq. hectare i.e. Rs. 00-40 ps. per sq.mtr. for non-irrigated land and Rs. 6,000/- per sq. hectare i.e. Rs. 00-60 ps. per sq.mtr. for irrigated land in land acquisition case No. 24 of 1993. The claimants felt that the amount offered by way of compensation to them was highly inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, applied for references and their references were registered as Land Reference Case Nos. 80 to 97 of 2000 . The claimants claimed compensation @ Rs. 10/- per sq.mtr. Since all the above referred land reference cases arose out of the common LAQ No. 24 of 1993, the reference cases were consolidated and common evidence was recorded by the Reference Court.
In the impugned judgment and award the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the claimants failed to prove that they were entitled to get more amount by way of compensation and that the claimants failed to prove the income that is derived from the sale of the agricultural product. The Reference Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that what was offered to them by way of compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was just and reasonable amount of compensation and, ultimately, the Reference Court dismissed all the land reference cases, which has given rise to these appeals.
Mr. N.V. Gandhi, representing the Appellants - claimants at the outset, submitted that the Reference Court committed serious error in outright dismissing all the land reference cases. It is submitted that before the Reference Court, the claimants had produced sufficient oral and documentary evidence to come to the conclusion that what was offered by way of compensation i.e. Rs. 00-40 ps. per sq.mtr. for non-irrigated land and Rs. 00-60 ps. per sq.mtr. for irrigated land, was highly inadequate and insufficient. It is submitted that despite this, Reference Court discarded such evidence and came to the conclusion that what was offered by way of compensation was just and fair amount of compensation.
4.1 Drawing my attention to paragraph 4.12 in the memorandum of appeals, Mr. Gandhi, Ld. Advocate submitted that before the Reference Court, Ld. Advocate representing the claimants relied upon comparable awards passed in LAR Nos. 74 to 96 of 2004, LAR Nos. 97 to 118 of 2004 and LAR No. 147 to 164 of 2004. It is submitted that for the identical public purpose of Maliya Canal of Narmada Scheme in those group of land reference cases, lands of same village i.e. Juna Ghatila, Tal. Maliya came to be acquired and even the compensation offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in those cases to the claimants of lands of village Juna Ghatila, was the same as the Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry in the same land acquisition case bearing LAR No. 29 of 1993. It is submitted that in common judgment and award dated 30/12/2006 rendered by Ld. Sr. Civil Judge, Morbi in Land Reference Case Nos. 74 to 96 of 2004, the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on the same date i.e. on 7/7/1993. It is submitted that in those comparable awards, the Reference Court awarded additional amount of compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sq.mtr. for non-irrigated land and Rs. 7/- per sq.mtr. for irrigated land. Mr. Gandhi, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants - claimants submitted that though the comparable awards were cited and relied upon by the claimants, in the impugned judgment, the Reference Court completely discarded said evidence and, ultimately, dismissed the Land Reference Cases.
4.2 Mr. Gandhi, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants relied upon a case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Gordhanbhai Dahyabhai 2009(21) GHJ 409 and submitted that in that case, the lands situated in the outskirts of village Kumbharia, Tal. Maliya, came to be acquired for the identical public purpose of Maliya Canal of Narmada Scheme, wherein the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 17/10/1992. In that case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered the compensation @ Rs. 00-50 ps. per sq.mtr. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation and awarded the additional compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sq.mtr. for non-irrigated land and Rs. 7/- per sq.mtr. for irrigated land and the common judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court came to be challenged by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before this Court and relying upon the aforesaid decision, it is submitted that the appeals preferred by the Land Acquisition Officer came to be dismissed.
4.3 Ultimately, it is submitted that all these appeals may be allowed and Appellants - claimants may be held to be entitled to recover just and appropriate amount of compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sq.mtr. for non-irrigated land and Rs. 7/- per sq.mtr. for irrigated land.
Per contra, Ms. Sachi Mathur, Ld. AGP, representing the Respondents - State vehemently opposed these appeals and submitted that the Reference Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and rightly came to the conclusion that the claimants miserably failed to prove that they were entitled to recover more amount of compensation than what was offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Ultimately, it is submitted that the appeals may be dismissed.
Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also perusing the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court, it transpires that the Reference Court dismissed all these reference cases holding that the claimants failed to establish their cases that they were entitled to recover more amount by way of compensation than what was offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. There is no dispute that the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered the compensation @ Rs. 00-40 ps. per sq.mtr. for non-irrigated land and @ Rs. 00-60 ps. per sq.mtr. for irrigated land. Apart from the oral and documentary evidence produced by the claimants before the Reference Court, it is pertinent to note that a specific grievance is ventilated not only in the memorandum of appeal, but at the time of arguments by the Ld. Advocate Mr. Gandhi for the Appellants - claimants that the comparable awards cited before the Reference Court were not at all taken into consideration. The copies of three awards have been tendered to this Court for ready reference. Mr. Gandhi, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants also tendered certified copy of written arguments filed by Ld. Advocate for the claimants before the Reference Court. Annexing the certified copies of judgment and award dated 30/6/2006 rendered in LAR Nos. 54 to 73 of 2004 regarding the acquisition of lands of village Kumbharia, Tal. Maliya, whereby for the identical public purpose, the lands of those claimants came to be acquired and the notification u/s 4 of the Act in that case was published on dated 9/2/1993 wherein the Reference Court awarded additional amount of compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sq.mtr. for non-irrigated land and Rs. 7/- per sq.mtr. for irrigated land. The copies of the comparable awards as well as the certified copies of the written arguments tendered by the claimants before the Reference Court shall be retained on record.
Perusing the copies of comparable awards i.e. judgment and award dated 9/2/2007 rendered in Land Reference Case Nos. 147 to 164 of 2004, judgment and award dated 9/2/2007 rendered in LAR Nos. 97 to 118 of 2004 and the judgment and award dated 31/12/2006 rendered in LAR Case Nos. 74 to 96 of 2004, which ultimately came to be confirmed by this Court in FA No. 142 of 2009 with FA No. 143 of 2009 to FA No. 144 of 2009 vide judgment and order dated 2/5/2009, it transpires that the lands of the same village i.e. village Juna Ghatiya came to be acquired for the identical public purpose. In all the comparable awards, the Reference Court awarded additional amount of compensation @ Rs. 5/- per sq.mtr. for non-irrigated land and @ Rs. 7/- per sq.mtr. for irrigated land. As stated above, the common judgment and award dated 31/12/2006 rendered in LAR case Nos. 74 to 96 of 2004 came to be challenged by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before this Court in FA Nos. 142 to 144 of 2009 and vide common judgment and order dated 2/5/2009, this Court (Coram: Hon''ble Mr. Justice H.K. Rathod) observed that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer @ Rs. 00-40 ps.per sq.mtr. was definitely meagre and inadequate and, ultimately, dismissed the appeal preferred by the State.
Considering the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer v. Gordhanbhai Dahyabhai 2009(21) GHJ 409, it transpires that certain lands of village Kumbharia, Tal. Maliya, Dist. Rajkot came to be acquired for the identical public purpose of Maliya Canal of Narmada Scheme and in said case the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 9/2/1993. In the said case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered the compensation @ Rs. 00-10 ps., to Rs. 00- 50 ps. per sq.mtr. The claimants in that case felt that the amount of compensation awarded to them was highly inadequate and, therefore, they applied for reference. The Reference Court enhanced the amount of compensation and the additional amount of compensation was ordered to be paid @ Rs. 5/- per sq.mtr. for non-irrigated land and Rs. 7/- per sq.mtr. for irrigated land. The common judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court came to be challenged by the Special Land Acquisition Officer before this Court in the aforementioned first appeals. This Court vide judgment and order dated 14/5/2009 came to the conclusion that the Reference Court was justified in awarding the additional amount of compensation and, ultimately, dismissed the appeals preferred by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
In the above background, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court committed serious error in dismissing the LAR cases and in discarding the written arguments produced by the claimants before him and the comparable awards relied upon by the claimants. In the result, all these appeals deserve to be allowed.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed and the impugned common judgment and award rendered by the Ld. Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Morbi on 27/4/2007 in land reference case Nos. 80 to 97 of 2000 are quashed and set-aside.
10.1 It is hereby directed that the Appellants - claimants are entitled to recover the additional amount of compensation of their lands acquired @ Rs. 5/- per sq.mtr. for non-irrigated land and Rs. 7/- per sq.mtr. for irrigated land. They are also entitled to recover statutory increases as contemplated u/s 23(1-A) in the Land Acquisition Act as well as solatium u/s 23(2) under the Act. The amount already awarded to the Appellants - claimants by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in his award u/s 11 of the Act shall have to be deducted from the amount of compensation determined by this Court. There shall be no order as to costs.