Special Laq Officer vs Tahkorbhai Shanabhai and Another

H.K. Rathod, J.—Heard learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi appearing on behalf of the appellant - Special Land Acquisition Officer and learned advocate Mr. A.J. Patel appearing on behalf of the respondent - claimant.

The appellant - Special Land Acquisition Officer, has challenged the award passed by the Reference Court, Civil Court (S.D.), Bharuch in Land Reference Case Nos. 1436 of 1998 to 1451 of 1998 decided on 4.11.2004 vide Exhibit 101. These all References are consolidated in main Land Acquisition Reference No. 1445 of 1998.

The land of the original claimants situated in the sim of village Tegva. Taluka : Amod, District : Bharuch, was acquired for the purpose of construction of Tegva Minor Prashakha Canal of Narmda Yojna. The Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 12.8.1996, whereas the Notification u/s 6 of the said Act, was published on 1.4.1997. After following due procedure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 31.12.1997, awarded compensation for the acquired land @ Rs. 3/- per sq. mtr. as against the claim of the claimant.

Learned Additional Government Pleader has raised the contention that claimant has failed to prove before the Reference Court that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate and not proper and committed error in awarding of the amount of Rs. 3/- per sq. mtr. for the acquired land and the Reference Court has also committed error in awarding amount of Rs. 32 per sq. mtr. The written statement filed by the appellant at Exhibit 4 and 6, have not been properly appreciated by the Reference Court and Reference Court must have to consider while awarding compensation on the basis five years sale instances. The award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer has been accepted by the claimant without any objection and he has also not filed any objection before the Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, in this circumstance, the Reference Court ought not to have interfered with the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer. The respondent - claimant did not produce any evidence with regard to the income being received from the acquired land by way of account as well as bill with regard to the sale transaction of the yield. The judgment relied upon by the Reference Court has not become final because the appeal is pending before this Court. Otherwise also, according to him, the award passed by the Reference Court is illegal.

Learned advocate Mr. A.J.Patel submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon the previous award Exhibit 24 which is related to the year and according to the Reference Court, the claimants are entitled for the price rise @ 10% i.e. Rs. 3.20Ps. over and above, the compensation awarded in previous award Exhibit 24 by the Reference Court. The previous judgment Exhibit 25 is also considered by the Reference Court and according to them Rs. 35.20, the claimant is entitled per sq. mtr. The Reference Court has considered the relevancy of the previous judgment produced by the appellant, it pertains to the land acquired of the village Kothi and Simartha of Taluka Amod, at Exhibit 96. Notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, of the above previous award dated 19.6.1986 was Rs. 10/- per Sq. mtr. awarded by the Reference Court. Therefore, the difference between Notifications u/s 4 is of 10 years. Considering the difference between the Notifications of present Reference cases and previous award Exhibit 96, the claimants are entitled to Rs. 20/- per Sq. Mtr. This aspect has been considered in detailed by the Reference Court to the effect that the land of village Kothi and Simartha were non-irrigated lands while the land under the present Reference are having irrigation facilities and for that purpose, the claimants have produced certified copies of village form No. 7/12 pertaining to other agriculturist vide Exhibit 27 to 40, whereas the recital as to the irrigation facility by wells and electric motors appears and also produced a kuva patrak vide Exhibit 41, wherein 16 wells have been mentioned and all those wells have been mentioned for the irrigation purpose. The wells are situated nearby the acquired lands. There is suggestion on behalf of the appellants as to the availability of irrigation facility to the claimants. The claimants have successfully established that there were facilities of irrigation. They have also produced the certified copies of village No. 7/12 pertaining to their acquired lands, wherein also the availability of irrigation facility has been mentioned in column No. 11, therefore, considering the irrigation facility, the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for Rs. 20/- per sq. mtr. as compensation in view of the previous award Exhibit 96 and also entitled for the price rise at the rat of 1, 1/2 times as their lands were irrigated. Meaning thereby if the previous award Exhibit 96 is considered as relevant factor even in that circumstances, the claimants are also entitled to get Rs. 30/- per sq. mtr. as a value of their acquired lands. So far as the relevancy of the award Exhibit 96 is concerned, the witness of appellant Rameshbhai Mansingbhai Chauhan has deposed that the distance between village Tegva and village Kothi and Simartha is of 10 to 12 k.mt. He has no knowledge as to the difference between the village Tegva and Simartha. Considering the award Exhibit 96 it is pertinent to note that the lands were acquired of village Kothi as well as village Simartha by same Notification. Meaning thereby both the lands were situated nearby, therefore, naturally the distance between village Tegva and Kothi also between villages Tegva and Simrtha would be 10 to 12 K.mts. So far as the distance is concerned, previous award Exhibit 24 is more relevant and acceptable as against the previous award Exhibit 96, which has been relied upon by the appellants. In view of the comparison of previous awards, the Reference Court has come to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for Rs. 35.20Ps. per sq. mtr. of the acquired land. The Reference Court has examined aspect of yield, the claimant has during his examination in chief has deposed as to the quantity of cotton as well as green tuver and dry tuver and income from the crop of juwar. The claimant has also deposed that they were getting 28 quintals of cotton per acre per year and after multiplying it by relevant price, they were getting Rs. 52,400/- as a gross income and Rs. 34,000/- as a net income per acre and were also getting Rs. 3700/- per acre as net income out of crop of juwar but if the claimants were getting only 12 quintal of cotton and after multiplying it by average price which was prevailing in the year 1995-96, it will come to Rs. 25,200/- the net income after deducting 50% towards the cultivation charges it would come to Rs. 12,600/- per acre per year and if divide it by 4000 sq. mtr., it will come to Rs. 3.15Ps. per sq. mtr. and after multiplying it by 10 as it has been accepted by the Apex Court and High Court, it will come to Rs. 31.50Ps. per sq. mtr. In respect to other claimants, who were getting only 14 quintals of green tuver and only 3 quintals of dry tuver and after multiplying it by average price, which was prevailing in the year 1995-96, it will come to Rs. 27,526/- as a gross income per acre out of tuver only and after deducting 50% towards cultivation costs, it will come come to Rs. 3.44Ps per sq. mtr. and after applying multiplier of 10, it will come to Rs. 34.40Ps. per sq. mtr. The Reference Court from the above guess work, the income from the juwar has not been considered, even the market price of the acquired land comes to Rs. 34.40Ps. per sq. mtr. and considering the growing crop of cotton, the agriculturist are entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs. 31.50Ps. per sq. mtr. while the claimants were growing the crop of tuver, are entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs. 34.40Ps. while the claimants are entitled for the compensation at the rate of Rs. 35.20 Ps. per sq. mtr, considering the relevancy of previous award Exhibit 24. So far as the previous award Exhibit 96 is concerned, it pertains to the lands, which were situated as far distance and not relevant for the purpose of determination of compensation for the acquired land under reference. Therefore, the Reference Court has considered the previous award Exhibit 24 and fixed the market price of Rs. 32 per sq. mtr., which has been awarded to the claimant on that basis, consequential benefits has also been extended in favour of the claimants.

Learned advocate Mr. A.J. Patel submitted that Exhibit 24 is in respect to the village Ashnera against the First Appeal No. 2892 of 2005 to First Appeal No. 2905 of 2005 filed by the State of Gujarat and Special Land Acquisition Officer before this Court and this Court by order dated 8.4.2009, dismissed the First Appeal filed by the appellant considering the reasons given by the Reference Court in para 12 as referred in para 8 by this Court. Learned advocate Mr. A.J. Patel submitted that the award Exhibit 24 challenged before this Court by the appellant as referred above, the appeal has been dismissed. He also further pointed out that in respect to village Tegva itself the award passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference No. 1334 of 1997 to 1346 of 1997 dated 4.11.2004, Exhibit 85, where Rs. 32/- has been fixed for market price, while considering the previous award in respect of village Ashnera Exhibit 39. The First Appeal No. 4611 of 2007 to 4622 of 2007 were dismissed by this Court by order dated 18.4.2009. In respect to same village Tegva, where Section 4 Notification is dated 27.7.1995 and Section 6 Notification is dated 23.5.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer has passed award u/s 11 of the Act on 30.11.1996 awarding Rs. 3-/- per sq. mtr. equivalent to Rs. 300/- for per Are by way of compensation for their acquired land. Therefore, considering submissions made by learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi and learned advocate Mr. A.J. Patel, according to my opinion, the Reference Court has rightly examined the matter and considering the previous award Exhibit 24 and considering Exhibit 96, previous award and find out difference between both and then relevant Exhibit 24 as well as considering the matter even on yield basis and ultimately, the Reference Court has awarded Rs. 32/- per sq. mtr. being market price for the land in question acquired by the State Government. According to my opinion, the Reference Court has rightly examined the matter and reasoning given in Exhibit 24 award has been taken into account and distance between the village Kothi and village Simratha, but rightly considered the village Ashnera, which is nearer to the village Tegva. Therefore, according to my opinion, the Reference Court has not committed any error, which requires interference by this Court. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned Additional Government Pleader Mr. Trivedi, can not be said to have any substance. Hence, this group of the First Appeal is rejected.