Mali Ratnabhai Girdharbhai vs Dy. Collector, Land Acquisition ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9116 Guj

       C/FA/5246/2019                             ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                        R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5246 of 2019
                                     With
                        R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5192 of 2019
                                     With
                        R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5263 of 2019
                                     With
                         R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 100 of 2020
                                     With
                        R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 6053 of 2019
==========================================================
                   MALI RATNABHAI GIRDHARBHAI
                              Versus
        DY. COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILIATION,
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS ASMITA PATEL, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                              Date : 14/10/2022
                            COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Dave appearing for the appellants-claimants has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment and award dated 24.04.2019 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Civil Judge, Taluka Deodar, District Palanpur in LAR No.13 of 2018 since for the very same village (earlier known as Manpura/Dhunsol) the reference court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.81.05/- for which the land acquired of the present Village Manpura for which Section 4 notification was issued on the very same date as of Village Dhunsol i.e. on 13.01.1997. It is submitted that the land was acquired by the same acquiring body for the same project. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned judgment and award dated 12.10.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge,

C/FA/5246/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022

Palanpur in LAR No.466 to 409 of 2000 and allied matters is required to be modified to that extent. It is submitted that the aforesaid award passed in Village Dhunsol has been accepted by the State Government and accordingly, the present first appeals may be allowed.

2. Per contra, learned AGP Ms.Patel has fairly admitted that earlier Village Manpura and Dhunsol were the same village, however, thereafter, they were bifurcated and known as Manpura and Dhunsol. It is submitted that however the appellants i.e. the claimants did not lead any evidence before the reference court with regard to taking crops like Millet, Cotton, Guvar, Castor-seed, Jeera Seasame etc. and hence, the impugned judgment and award by the reference court may not be modified and similar benefits, which are extended to the claimants of Dhunsol village, may not be granted to the present appellants.

3. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties.

4. It is not in dispute that two villages being Manpura and Dhunsol were earlier known as Manpura-Dhunsol village by common name for the land acquired for Village Dhunsol for which Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act (for short "the Act") was issued on 13.01.1997, which was the subject matter of deliberation before the reference court in LAR Case No.13 of 2018, the reference court vide judgment and award dated 24.04.2019 awarded an additional compensation of Rs.81.05 over and above compensation of Rs.2.50 as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act. The appellants-claimants are the residents of Manpura Village and the lands are also acquired by the same

C/FA/5246/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022

acquiring body for the very same purpose by issuing notification of the same date i.e. 13.01.1997, which has been issued in the case of land acquired for Village Dhunsol, for which the land acquisition officer has awarded Rs.2.05/-, the reference court has awarded an amount of Rs.19.81/- per sq.mtr. as an additional compensation by the impugned judgment and award. The award in case of Dhunsol village, is accepted by the State Government and accordingly, the claimants have been paid the additional compensation of Rs.81.05/-. Thus, the present appellants, who are also residents of Manpura village, which was earlier known as Manpura-Dhunsol village cannot be denied the same treatment as the lands are of the same vicinity and they are also entitled to the similar treatment, which has been extended to the claimants/residents of Dhunsol village. Both the Section 4 notifications are issued on the same date, the acquiring body is also same. The present appellants are the residents of Manpura village. The land acquisition officer has awarded an amount of Rs.2.05/-, however, in case of residents of Dhunsol village, the land acquisition officer has awarded an amount of Rs.2.50/- per sq.mtr.

5. In the present case, the reference court has awarded Rs.19.81/- as an additional compensation by the award dated 12.10.2013, whereas it appears that subsequently in the case of Dhunsol village, the reference court has awarded Rs.81.05/- as an additional compensation by the judgment and award dated 24.04.2019.

6. Under the circumstances, this Court cannot deny the benefit, which is extended to the claimants of Dhunsol village. It is pertinent to note that the reference court, while awarding the additional compensation of Rs.81.05/- to the claimants of Dhunsol village has placed reliance on the

C/FA/5246/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022

land acquired of Kotarvada village, for which Section 4 notification issued on 30.04.1997. This Court has perused the map along with additional evidence. On perusal of the same, it reveals that the boundaries of Kotarvada, Dhunsol and Manpura villages are common and all the three villages are adjoining. For the land acquired of Kotarvada village, the additional compensation of Rs.81.05/- has been awarded by the reference court by the judgment and award dated 22.03.2017 in LAR Nos.157, 159 to 162 of 2000 and allied matters, and the same is accepted by the State Government. Thus, the present appellants-claimants, who belong to Manpura village cannot be discriminated from awarding the additional compensation to either of which has been awarded to the claimants of Dhunsol village and Kotarvada village. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is modified to the below extent.

"The claimants would be entitled to an additional compensation of Rs.61.24/- per sq.mtr., which has been awarded by the court below. The rest of the directions remain unaltered. The acquiring body shall deposit the remaining amount within a period of three months. After such deposit, the reference court shall disburse the same to claimants after proper verification."

7. After the order was dictated, learned AGP Ms.Patel has pointed out the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.26817 of 2018. The same is reproduced as under:-

"Issue notice.

Untill further orders, there will be stay of operation of the impugned orders passed by the High Court, subject to petitioners depositing with Reference Court the interest from the date of award,

C/FA/5246/2019 ORDER DATED: 14/10/2022

within three weeks from today.

On such deposit, it will be open to the claimants to withdraw the same, on proper verification, without prejudice to their contentions in these cases.

We make it clear that this order will apply in the case of all pending matters in the High Court and, therefore, those claimants need not travel to this Court.

Tag with SLP(C) No.27049/2018"

8. The Apex Court in the order dated 12.10.2018 has ordered that for all the matters, which are pending before this Court, the acquiring body is directed to deposit the interest from the date of award and as on such deposit, it would be open for the claimants to withdraw the same on proper verification without prejudice to their contentions in the case pending before the Apex Court.

9. Thus, on such deposit of the entire amount, as ordered by this Court, the claimants would be entitled to interest from the date of award. It is further clarified that the same will be subject to further orders, which will be passed by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases.

10. It is further clarified that whatever deficit court fees the same shall be deposited by the present appellants before the Registry of this Court as mentioned by the learned advocate Mr.Dave.

11. All the first appeals are allowed. The rest of the directions issued by the reference court shall remain unaltered.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ABHISHEK/5