State of Gujarat and Another vs Aher Jagmal Lakhman Jodwa

J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—The challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment and award dated 12.10.2007 rendered by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Veraval in LAR Case Nos. 6 to 11 of 2005 whereby the reference Court awarded additional amount of compensation to the Respondents - claimants @ Rs. 1591/- per RA for Piyat land, and so far as LAR Case Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005 are concerned, the reference Court awarded compensation at the additional rate of Rs. 1966/- per RA. Furthermore, so far as the land reference case Nos. 6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 were concerned, the additional amount of compensation was granted on the basis of the yield of various fruits, namely, coconut, badam, gunda etc. and along with judgment and award, two schedules came to be attached, namely, Schedule ''A'' and Schedule ''B'', and it transpires that so far as the land reference case Nos. 6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 are concerned, the amount of compensation came to be paid only on the basis of standing fruit bearing trees and annual production thereof, and so far as LAR Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005 are concerned, the reference Court awarded compensation to the claimants of these two land reference cases at the additional rate of Rs. 1966/- per RA. The State of Gujarat and the Executive Engineer, who were opponents in the reference cases, felt that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants was exorbitant and on higher side and, therefore, challenged the impugned judgment and award in these appeals.

Certain agricultural lands belonging to the Respondents claimants situated in the outskirts of village Kukaswada, Taluka Malia Hatina, District Junagadh, detailed in paragraph 2 in the judgment and award, proposed to be acquired for the common public purpose of Canal connecting two rivers, namely, Noli and Meghal. The notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (''the Act'', for short) came to be published on dated 5.11.1998 and the notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on dated 2.2.1999. The Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry in LAQ No. 33 of 1998 to determine the just and sufficient amount of compensation and declared his award u/s 11 of the Act on dated 20.04.2001 and offered compensation @ Rs. 1100/- per RA for irrigated land and Rs. 725/- per RA for non-irrigated land. The claimants felt that the amount offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was highly inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, they applied for references, and their references were numbered and registered as LAR Case Nos. 6 to 11 of 2005 wherein they claimed compensation @ Rs. 10000/- per RA.

Since all those land reference cases arose out of common award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s 11 of the Act, the reference Court consolidated all those reference Cases and common evidence was recorded. On behalf of the claimants, claimants in land reference case No. 6 of 2005, namely, Jagmalbhai Laxmanbhai and claimant in land reference case No. 7 of 2005, namely, Pradumansinh Lalubha came to be examined. The claimant examined witness Ganga Parbatbhai at Exh.22. No more witnesses were examined by the claimants. On behalf of the opponent, the evidence of Lalabhai Kuberbhai was recorded. Both the parties produced necessary documentary evidence. After appreciating and evaluating the oral and documentary evidence on record and considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the reference Court came to the conclusion that the amount offered to the claimants by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was highly inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, so far as the land reference case Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005 are concerned, the reference Court awarded compensation to the Respondents - claimants at the additional rate of Rs. 1966/- per RA and so far as the rest of the land reference cases, namely, LAR case Nos. 6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 are concerned, as per Schedule ''A'', the reference Court awarded compensation on the basis of annual production of various fruits, considering average production and the price of various fruits, namely, coconut, badam etc. This has given rise to the instant appeals.

Ms. Shachi Mathur, ld.AGP for the Appellants - original Respondents submitted that the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court is contrary to law and facts on record. It is submitted that the reference Court in connection with two reference cases, namely, the LAR Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005, determined the amount of compensation, relying upon earlier sale-deed, Exh.24 and came to the conclusion that the claimants of these two land reference cases were entitled to recover additional amount of compensation @ Rs. 1966/- per RA. It is submitted that so far as the remaining four land reference cases were concerned, the reference Court awarded compensation on the basis of the production of fruits, namely, coconut, badam etc. and by adopting yield method, the reference Court awarded compensation. Ms. Mathur, ld.AGP for the Appellants submitted that the reference Court adopted faulty method in determining the just and fair amount of compensation. In the impugned judgment and award, at one place, the reference Court observed that the claimants were entitled for additional compensation of Rs. 1000/- towards non-fruit tree, but if Schedule ''A'' is considered, nowhere it appears that the said formula was adopted while determining the amount of compensation. It is further submitted that except the oral evidence of the claimants, there is no cogent and convincing evidence regarding the production of various fruits and the market price thereof prevalent at the time of the acquisition of the lands. It is, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment and award is based on presumptions and assumptions. Ms. Mathur, ld.AGP for the Appellants ultimately submitted that the appeals may be allowed and the impugned common judgment and award rendered by the reference Court be set-aside.

Per contra, Mr. Vimal Patel, ld. advocate for the Respondents - original claimants supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court and stated that the reference Court has adopted correct method while determining the amount of compensation. It is submitted that the reference Court rightly arrived at the conclusion on the basis of evidence on record. That except LAR Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005, in the remaining four cases, there were fruit bearing trees and for those four cases, the reference Court rightly adopted the yield method. It is submitted that qua those four reference cases, the reference Court did not grant the compensation at any fixed rate per RA or per square meter. Mr. Patel, ld. advocate drew my attention to Form ''D'' attached to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s 11 of the Act and submitted that even qua these four land reference cases, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on the basis of the standing fruit plantations in the lands and the value of the yield, and on the same basis, in the impugned judgment and award, the reference Court awarded the compensation. However, the reference Court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the amount awarded qua these four land reference cases by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was quite meager and insufficient and the reference Court was perfectly justified in determining the fair and reasonable amount of compensation. Mr. Patel, ld. advocate for the Respondents - claimants, therefore, submitted that no ground is made out by the Appellants to interfere with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court and all these appeals may be dismissed.

I have examined the record and proceedings in context with the submissions advanced by the rival sides.

Examining the record and proceedings of the case, as well as considering the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court, it seems that so far as LAR Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005 are concerned, the reference Court while determining the just and fair amount of compensation relied upon the comparable sale instance, Exh.24 and the evidence of buyer Ganga Parbatbhai recorded at Exh.22. It transpires that the comparable sale instance, Exh.24 pertains to the land situated in the outskirts of village Kukaswada itself whereby by executing the registered sale-deed dated 15.4.1994 Ganga Prabhatbhai, who came to be examined at Exh.22, purchased the land, admeasuring 97 acres at the consideration of Rs. 1,80,000/- and the reference Court in paragraph 12 in the impugned judgment observed that the consideration price per RA would be Rs. 1856/-. It is pertinent to note that the said sale instance is dated 15.4.1994, whereas in the instant case, the notification u/s 4 of the Act came to be published on dated 5.11.1998, meaning thereby there was time gap of four years and five months. The reference Court, therefore, considering the earlier decisions of this Court, observed that the appreciation in value of land @ 10% p.a. is required to be considered and, accordingly, the reference Court observed that 45% increase is required to be given and, accordingly, the reference Court came to the conclusion that Rs. 835/- per RA are required to be added in Rs. 1856/- per RA. The claimants of LAR Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005 are entitled to claim just and fair amount of compensation @ Rs. 2691/- per RA, but the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to those claimants @ Rs. 725/- per RA for non-irrigated land and, therefore, deducting Rs. 725/- per RA from Rs. 2691/- per RA, the claimants of LAR Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005 were entitled to claim additional amount of compensation @ Rs. 1966/- per RA. It is further pertinent to note that to substantiate the sale instance, Exh.24, the claimants examined buyer Ganga Parbatbhai as their witness and considering his evidence, recorded at Exh.22, it clearly transpires that the sale was free sale, without any element of compulsion, either on the part of the buyer or on the part of the vendor. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the reference Court did not commit any error in relying upon the earlier sale instance of the same village while fixing just and reasonable amount of compensation regarding the lands of the claimants of LAR Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005. Perusing the evidence of Ganga Parbatbhai, it further transpires that the acquired lands are situated just nearby the land comprised under the sale instance.

The reference Court, thereafter, took into consideration an admitted fact that so far as the claimants of LAR Nos. 6,9,10 and 11 were concerned, in their acquired lands, there were standing fruit plantations and in support thereof, the reference Court relied upon the evidence of Ranmal Kachrabhai examined at Exh.17, and through his evidence, the fertility and potentiality of the lands situated in this area as well as the types of different fruit plantations used to be cultivated in this area and their yields etc. together with the price of various fruits prevalent at the relevant time has come on record. Over and above this, there is evidence of witness Bhagwanjibhai Ramjibhai, examined at Exh.18, who at the relevant time was serving as Secretary in Agricultural Market Committee, Junagadh. He produced extracts of relevant register at Exh.52. The claimant of LAR No. 6 of 2005, namely, Jagmal Laxmanbhai came to be examined at Exh.21 and considering paragraphs 5 and 6 in his evidence, it clearly transpires that in the acquired lands (except LAR Nos. 7 and 8 of 2005) there were tree plantations, namely, coconut, gunda, badam etc. Perusing his deposition, the evidence has come on record about the yield of different fruits in various fruit trees and the relevant price of the fruits thereof. He was succinctly cross-examined on behalf of the opponent, but nothing reveals, which would make his evidence either doubtful or improper. Moreover, if the statement Form ''D'' attached to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s 11 of the Act is considered, together with Schedule ''A'' attached to the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court, it clearly transpires that the number of fruit trees mentioned in both these statements tally with each other. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, in the impugned judgment and award the reference Court came to the conclusion that the amount offered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by way of compensation to the claimants of LAR Case Nos. 6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 was highly inadequate and meager. As stated above, considering the evidence of the claimants examined before the reference Court, so also the evidence of the witnesses, sufficient evidence has come on record about the yield of different types of fruits and the price thereof prevalent at the time of the acquisition of the land. In paragraph 13 in the impugned judgment and award, the reference Court has examined this aspect of the matter elaborately. The reference Court took into consideration the earlier decisions of this Court and of Hon''ble the Apex Court and, ultimately, came to the conclusion that the claimants of those four land reference cases were entitled to claim reasonable amount of compensation as narrated in Schedule ''A'' attached to the impugned judgment and award.

In light of the entire above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there is no sufficient ground or reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court. These appeals are, therefore, devoid of any merits and deserve dismissal.

For the foregoing reasons, these appeals are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Registry to send back the R & P of the land reference cases to the reference Court forthwith.