AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge Mahuva, District Bhavnagar in Land Reference Case Nos. 57 of 2004 to 66 of 2004 dated 21.06.2013, the State and Acquiring Body have preferred these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
2.0. The following facts emerge from the record of the appeals.
2.1. That the lands situated at village Pingli, Tal: Talaja, Dist. Bhavnagar were acquired for the public purpose of "Pingli Irrigation Scheme" by the State Government. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 2.8.2001 followed by the declaration under Section 6 of the Act on 13.12.2001. The Special Land Acquisition Officer made and declared award under Section 11(1) of the Act on 4.11.2003 whereby the Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.600/ per Are for irrigated lands i.e. Rs. 6/ per sq mtr and Rs.450/ per Are for non irrigated lands i.e. Rs.4.50/ per sq mtr.
2.2. The respondents - land owners were dissatisfied with the said award, preferred applications under Section 18 of the Act, which were referred to the Reference Court and registered as Land Reference Case Nos. 57 of 2004 to 66 of 2004. The land owners by the said Reference claimed Rs.100/ per sq mtr for the lands acquired. The land owners adduced the oral evidence and one of the original land owner was examined at Exh.11 and 12. The land owners also examined Joint Secretary of the Marketing Yard, Mahuvaat Exh.21, Jeshingbhai Makwana, Talati cum Mantri of village Pingli at Exh.25, Shri R.V. Sakaria, valuer of the land at Exh.43 and one of the coowner Jeshabhai Rajabhai at Exh.46. The land owners also relied upon the documentary evidence, which are price list of APMC of different years being Exh. 13 to 18, certified copy of the registered sale deed no.569 dated 3.12.1997 for survey no. 64 of village Pingli at Exh.19. Over and above such evidence, respondents original owners also relied upon the village form no. 7/12 and form no.16 being Exhs. 26 to 39 and Exhs. 50 to 56. The land owners also relied upon the certificate of Mr. R.V. Sakaria, approved valuer and valuation report at Exhs. 44 and 45 and certificate of Talati in respect of Well situated at Survey no. 64/ p6 at Exh.49.
2.3. The respondents examined the Special Land Acquisition Officer Shri Bharatbhai K Joshi, Deputy Collector at Exh.72 and also relied upon the certified copies of the sale deeds of survey nos. 76/3, 99, 36 paiki, 107 paiki, 60, 16/1 and 41 paiki at Exh. 75 to 81. The opponents also relied upon the other documentary evidence being village form no. 7/12 and possession receipts.
2.4. The Land Reference Court after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary evidence, determined the market value of the lands under acquisition based upon one of the sale deed, which was relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in the award itself and which was also relied upon by the land owners before the Reference Court being registered sale deed no. 569 of 1997 registered on 3.12.1997. Considering the date of Section 4 Notification in the case on hand being 2.8.2001, the Reference Court also gave rise to 10% and determined the market value of the lands under acquisition based upon sale deed of 1997 and awarded Rs.8393/ per Are i.e. Rs.83.93 per sq mtr.
2.5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said award, present appeals are filed by the State Government and acquiring body.
3.0. Heard Mr. Tirthraj Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. Jayesh Parmar, learned advocate for Mr. Nitin Amin, learned advocate for the respondents original owners.
4.0. Mr. Pandya has taken this Court through the impugned judgment and award as well as relevant evidence on record and submitted that the Reference Court has overlooked the evidence adduced by the appellants and has based the determination of the market value only on one of the sale deed which was produced on record by the respondent original owners and thus, the Reference Court has committed an error in determining the market value.
4.1. Mr. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that even though in the award the Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration all relevant aspects while determining the market value, the Reference Court has fixed very excessive market price, which deserves to be sliced down by allowing these appeals.
4.2. Mr. Pandya also contended that the Reference Court has wrongly given 10% rise even though other cogent evidence was available on record. Mr. Pandya also relied upon the oral deposition of Deputy Collector at Exh.72 and contended that the said witness even in cross examination has supported the sale instances which were relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer while passing the award. On the aforesaid grounds, Mr. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader contended that the appeals be allowed as prayed for.
5.0. Per contra, Mr. Jayesh Parmar, learned advocate for the original owners supported the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Parmar submitted that considering the deposition of respondent Agarsangbhai Solanki at Exh.12, the land owners have proved that best exemplar available on record was at Exh.19 being sale deed of survey no.64 of village Pingli dated 3.12.1997. Mr. Parmar further relying upon the Ex.19 contended that sale deed is of almost 1 acre and the said land admeasuring 4047 sq mtr was sold on 3.12.1997 for Rs. 2,50,000/ and therefore, taking the same as basis of determination of the market value, the same would come to Rs.61.77ps. Considering the date of Section 4 Notification in the present case, the Reference Court has rightly given 10% rise and has rightly determined the market value at Rs.84.28. Mr. Parmar also relied upon the oral deposition of valuer at Exh.43 and Talati cum Mantri at Exh.25 and submitted that the Reference Court has committed no error in determining the market price. Mr. Parmar however relying upon the observations made by the Reference Court contended that the Reference Court has taken best exemplar available on record and has rightly determined the market price of the lands in question at Rs.83.93 per sq mtr i.e. Rs.84/ per sq mter. On the aforesaid ground, it was contended that appeals being merit less and same deserve to be dismissed.
6.0. No other and further submissions / contentions have been raised by the learned advocates for the respective parties.
7.0. We have gone through the original Record and Proceeding of the case and have also perused the oral depositions of the respondents original owner - Agarsangbbhai Rajabhai Solanki at Exh.12. The deposition of valuer at Exh.43 as well as deposition of Deputy Collector - Shri Bharatbhai Joshi at Exh.75 and have also gone through the best exemplar at Exh.19, which is sale deed for area admeasuring 4047 sq mtr of survey no.64 situated in the same village i.e. Pingli.
7.1. It is no doubt true that Mr. Pandya learned Assistant Government Pleader tried to canvas that other exemplars were available on record, which have not been considered by the Reference Court. However, it is matter of record that the exemplar in the form of Exh.19 is not only in proximity of the date of Section
4, which is best exemplar, but is rightly taken as basis for determination of the market value. The principle followed by the Reference Court is that the highest price available from different exemplars have been taken for determination of the market value. In opinion of this Court, the Reference Court has rightly determined the market value upon highest exemplar available on record. Upon re appreciation of the evidence, it is found that there is no dispute as regards potentiality of land, nature of land, etc. Lands acquired under this acquisition are situated in the same village and therefore, all other factors which are relevant for determination of price such as fertility, potentiality etc. are similar and identical with the exemplar relied upon by the Reference Court i.e. Exh.19 land bearing survey no.64 admeasuring 4047 sq mtr of village Pingli. Even if the aspect, such as smallness of area is taken into consideration, 1 acre is not a small area and therefore, no deduction is required to be made while considering the market value for the lands which are acquired for the public purpose like present one i.e. for irrigation scheme. Though attempt was made that in the award, other instances are available, considering the cross examination of one of the owner at Exh.11 Narsang Rathod and Exh. 12 Agarsangbhai Solanki, the appellants have not been able to dislodge any of the witness i.e. land owners. Upon re appreciation of the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that learned Reference Court has fixed the market value based upon the exemplar which is best exemplar available on record and on recognized principle for determination of the market value. It is also found that appellants have not proved the contents of the award and therefore, also on this ground, the appellants cannot be permitted to fall back on the other instances which are mentioned by the Land Acquisition Officer while making and declaring the award under Section 11 of the Act. It is also found from the record that none of the sale instances which are relied upon have been proved by the appellants.
8.0. Resultantly, we find that the Reference Court has committed no error in determining the market value of the lands under acquisition. The appeals, therefore, fail and are hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Record and Proceedings of the case be transmitted back to the learned Reference Court forthwith.