AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—All these groups of appeals arise out of common judgment and award dated 29.11.2004 rendered by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Bharuch in land reference cases No. 1028 to 1045 of 1992 (main LAR No. 1045 of 1992).
Certain agricultural lands of the Respondents-claimants situated in the outskirts of village Sarsa, Tal. Jhagadia, Dis. Bharuch were proposed to be acquired for public purpose of construction of Sarsa Minor Canal under Karjan Project. The notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (''the Act'', for short) was published on 26.1.1989. The notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on dated 1.3.1990. The Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry for determining just and fair amount of compensation pertaining to the lands of the Respondents-claimants, which came to be acquired in land acquisition case No. 52 of 1989. The Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation @ Rs. 125/- per RA (Rs. 1.25 ps.per sq.mtr.). The Respondents-claimants felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation to them was quite inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, they applied for the references. Their references were numbered and registered as LAR Case Nos. 1028 to 1045 of 1992 and claimed Rs. 3000/- per RA (Rs. 30 per sq.mtr.) by way of additional compensation. Since all these reference cases arise out of the common award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s 11 of the Act, all these reference cases came to be consolidated by the reference Court and common evidence was recorded. On behalf of the claimants, one of the claimants Manilal P. Patel came to be examined at Exh.14. The claimants examined witnesses, namely, D.S. Vansadiya, who happens to be Talati - cum - Mantri of village Sarsa at Exh.23 and Bhupatsinh Hamirsinh, Exh.48. The claimants produced by way of documentary evidence, extracts of the revenue records pertaining to their lands as well as copy of previous award passed in LAR No. 788 of 1992 as well as a sale index at Exh.19. On behalf of the Appellant - opponent - State, no oral evidence was adduced. The reference Court considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the amount offered by way of compensation to the Respondents-claimants was quite inadequate and insufficient and relying upon the previous award, copy whereof was produced at Exh.9 before the reference Court and considering the sale instances relied upon in the previous award as well as before the reference Court in the instant case, came to the conclusion that the Respondents-claimants were entitled to recover just and fair amount of compensation at the market rate of Rs. 2727/- per RA (Rs. 27.27 ps.per sq.mtr.). The original opponent felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation to the claimants by the reference Court was excessive and was on higher side and, therefore, preferred these appeals.
Ms. Shachi Mathur, ld.AGP for the Appellants-original opponents, at the outset, submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference Court is contrary to law and facts on record. It is further submitted that in the previous award, Exh.9 passed by the reference Court in LAR Case No. 788 of 1992, the reference Court awarded the compensation @ Rs. 1518/- per RA (Rs. 15.18 ps.per sq.mtr.). That there was no reason whatsoever for the reference Court in the instant case to award more amount than what was awarded in the previous award. That the reasons assigned by the reference Court for awarding more amount, are contrary to law and facts on record. It is further submitted that the reference Court placed reliance upon the copy of sale index, Exh.19, whereby there was a sale transaction of one land situated at village Madhavpura, Tal. Jhagadia, and as per said sale index, on dated 3.1.1991, the consideration amount was paid @ Rs. 2272/- per RA (Rs. 22.72 ps.per sq.mtr.). It is submitted that neither said original sale-deed nor the true copy of sale-deed came to be produced before the reference Court nor either the vendor or the purchaser of said land of village Madhavpura came to be examined by the claimants. That, therefore, in absence of any evidence pertaining to the sale transaction, the reference Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the claimants in the instant case were entitled to recover compensation @ Rs. 2727/- per RA. Therefore, it is submitted that the appeals may be allowed.
Per contra, ld.advocate Mr. NK Majmudar, ld.advocate for the Respondents supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court and submitted that the reference Court in the impugned judgment and award rightly and properly appreciated the previous award, Exh.9 as well as the index of the sale instance, Exh.19. That even in the previous award, the said sale instance was relied upon. The lands comprised in the previous award as well as the lands comprised in the comparable sale instances were non-irrigated lands, whereas in the instant case, the lands of the claimants which went in acquisition were irrigated lands and that fact has been duly established by the evidence of Talati - cum - Mantri examined by the claimants. It is submitted that in the previous award, the reference Court determined the market value of the acquired lands @ Rs. 1518/- per RA because the comparable sale instance was dated 3.1.1991 and in said case, the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published in the year 1988 and, thus, there was time gap of three years, and the reference Court, therefore, deducted 30% amount out of Rs. 2272/- per RA, which comes to Rs. 1595/- i.e. Rs. 1518/- per RA. It is submitted that in the instant case, the notification u/s 4 of the Act came to be published in 1989 and, therefore, qua the comparable sale instance, there was a time gap of two years, and the reference Court in the instant case, in the result deducted 20% amount out of Rs. 2272/- and observed that Rs. 1818/- per RA can be taken as basis for determining the amount of compensation in this case. Since in the instant case, the lands acquired were irrigated lands and, therefore, the reference Court came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to half time more value than the non-irrigated land and, accordingly, Rs. 909/- per RA came to be added in Rs. 1818/- per RA and, thus, the reference Court determined the market value of the acquired land @ Rs. 2727/- per RA. That, thus, the reference Court rightly determined the amount of compensation and all these appeals deserve dismissal.
I have examined the record and proceedings in context with the submissions made by the rival sides.
Examining the record of the case, so also the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court, it transpires that the reference Court took into consideration the previous award, Exh.9. In the said case, the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published in the year 1988 and in that case, the comparable sale instance dated 3.1.1991 came to be considered whereby a non-irrigated agricultural land came to be sold at the consideration of Rs. 1,99,999/- and the land consisted of 88 RA and, accordingly, in the said case, the reference Court came to the conclusion that the sale was at the rate of Rs. 2272/- per RA. Since the sale was of the year 1991 and the notification u/s 4 of the Act in that case was published in the year 1988 and, therefore, deducting 30% amount, the reference Court came to the conclusion in said case that the claimants were entitled to recover compensation @ Rs. 1518/- per RA. Now, in the instant case, the certified copy of the sale index of the sale transaction came to be produced by the claimants with list, Exh.9 and below the list, Exh.9, there is the endorsement by learned AGP representing the Appellant - State before the reference Court regarding "no objection". Accordingly, the index of the said sale transaction came to be exhibited at Exh.19. The claimants before the reference Court examined witnesses, namely, Dolatsinh Sursinh at Exh.23, who happens to be Talati - cum - Mantri as well as Bhupatsinh Hamirsinh at Exh.48. Considering the evidence of Bhupatsinh Hamirsinh, examined at Exh.48, it clearly transpires that he was the owner of the land comprising the comparable sale instance, and he deposed that, he had sold said land by executing a registered sale-deed dated 3.1.1991 to one Prabhatsinh Ghumansinh at the consideration amount of Rs. 1,99,999/-. Thus, not only the sale index of the comparable sale instance which came to be exhibited at Exh.19, had been exhibited with the consent of the ld. AGP, representing the Appellant - original opponent before the reference Court, but in connection with the said sale instance, the claimants examined vendor Bhupatsinh Hamirsinh. This witness further admitted that the land which he sold was non-irrigated land.
Now, in the instant case, the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published in the year 1989. The comparable sale instance is dated 3.1.1991. Thus, there was a time gap of two years. The reference Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that 20% amount deserves to be deducted from Rs. 2272/- per RA price reflected in the comparable sale instance and, accordingly, came to the conclusion that the amount comes to Rs. 1818/- per RA. Thereafter, the reference Court observed that the comparable sale instance consisted of non-irrigated lands whereas the lands of the Respondents-claimants which went in acquisition were irrigated lands as deposed by Talati - cum - Mantri of the village and, therefore, reference Court observed that in the instant case, since the lands were irrigated lands, and, therefore, the claimants were entitled for half time more value than non-irrigated lands and, accordingly, added Rs. 909/- per RA in Rs. 1818/- per RA, which comes to Rs. 2727/- per RA (Rs. 27.27 ps.per sq.mtr.) and, accordingly, the reference Court awarded the just and fair amount of compensation @ Rs. 2727/- per RA (Rs. 27.27 ps.per sq.mtr.). The amount already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was ordered to be deducted from the above amount. In the result, it does not appear that the reference Court committed any error in fixing the market rate of the acquired lands of the Respondents-claimants or that the judgment and award is contrary to law or facts on record. In the result, it is not necessary for this Appellate Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and award passed by the reference Court and the appeals are devoid of any merits and deserve dismissal.
For the foregoing reasons, all these appeals stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.