Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Akheraj Ramsang Thakor
2022 Latest Caselaw 8164 Guj

       C/FA/2944/2005                             ORDER DATED: 20/09/2022




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                    R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2944 of 2005
                                 With
                    R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2945 of 2005
                                 With
                    R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2946 of 2005
                                 With
     CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2019
                   In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2946 of 2005
                                 With
                    R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2948 of 2005
==========================================================
              SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 other(s)
                                Versus
                       AKHERAJ RAMSANG THAKOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MOSON LE EXPARTS(11071) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR AKSHAT KHARE(5912) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                           Date : 20/09/2022
                         COMMON ORAL ORDER

Though served, no one appears on behalf of the claimants, even after passage of more than 18 years.

1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Akshat Khare for the appellants has fairly submitted that the issue raised in the first appeals is squarely covered by the order dated 06.03.2009 passed in First Appeal No.849 of 2009, except the payment of interest, whether it should be from the date of issuance of Section 4 notification or it should be from the date of award. Learned advocate Mr.Khare has submitted that issue with regard to the payment of interest is being examined by the Apex Court in SLP No.26817 of 2018.

C/FA/2944/2005 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2022

2. In the present group of appeals, the appellants have have assailed the common judgment and award dated 18.07.2002 passed in LAR Case No.1264 of 1997, whereby and wherein the reference court has awarded an additional compensation of Rs.14.55/- per sq.mtr. for the lands acquired of Village Saduthala, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana. The reference court, while placing reliance on the award passed in LAR No.2792 of 1996 passed for the land acquired for very same village, has awarded the aforesaid amount.

3. By the order dated 06.03.2009 passed in First Appeal No.849 of 2009, this Court, for the lands acquired for the same village and for the same notification, has confirmed the judgment and award passed in LAR No.2792 of 1996 dated 10.07.2001. The Court has observed thus:-

5.I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates and perused award passed by Reference Court. Before Reference Court respective parties have produced documentary evidence as well as oral evidence. Thereafter, issues have been framed by Reference Court. The reasoning is given by Reference Court for giving additional compensation in favour of respondent claimants. On behalf of claimants, witness namely Gopalsingh Tejsingh Zala - a claimant of LAR no. 2793/1996 is examined at exh 18 has stated that 1457 sq.mt land out of block S. no. 151 paiky situated in village Sadhuthala is permanently acquired other lands belonging to different claimants also acquired in same acquisition proceeding. He has seen all lands which are just, adjoining to each other and bearing equal and good potentiality.

6.Before Reference Court, admittedly in present land reference cases, claimants have not relied upon any sale instances to get market price accordingly, to determine market value of land, in question land acquired and involved in this proceeding. Claimant have not relied upon oral evidence as given in respect of annual yield without any support of documentary evidence. The Reference Court after considering aforesaid documents and factual aspect detailed reasoning is given in para 17 and 18

C/FA/2944/2005 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2022

which are quoted as under:

"17.It is undisputed fact that LAQ case No. 12/93 proceeded with, for which a necessary notifications u/s 4 and 6 are duly published, no iota of evidence is put on record by the other side to show any claimant being served notice of hearing as required u/s 9(3)(4) of "the Act" but on perusal the entire record that it seems claimants appeared before the special land acquisition officer under their constructive knowledge but it is their misfortune the oral submission whatever was made not consider by him. The claimants were offered and awarded Rs. 4-50ps. Per sq.mtr, the amount prima facie appears to be a very unfair, unjust because if we go to purchase a one metre cloth from the open market even of as ordinary quality, one has to spent not more than minimum 15/- rupees but the claimants before me have lost their valuable piece of land against their desire and under compulsory acquisition process which is the only income giving and family member maintaining instrument. So the claimant should feel their grievance is properly justified by the reference court. Certainly the claimants have given the evidence on agricultural potentiality. Stating the fact that he raising three seasonal crop as their being irrigation facility and at the end of year he is getting Rs. 40,000/- out of which he has to bear ¼ agricultural cost but L. A.

Shri B. G. Patel has not relied upon such evidence the claimants have put one judgment at exh 17 which is pertaining to village Maguna where under market value of the land determined by this Court to the extent of Rs. 17/- no more. It is stated by the claimant that simada between Saduthala and Maguna is the same at this juncture it is necessary to have a look to the case of 2nd Special land Acquisition Officer Kheda Vs. Chunilal Gangaram reported in 40 (2) GLR page 1357 wherein it is clearly held that the award declared for the village having a common simada can be relied upon this above evidence given by the claimant is not challenged on any count and I have no hesitation to follow the previous judgment. Considering the above judgments it appears that the Section 4 notification published on dated 3/4/1994 whereas corresponding notification is on dated 19/12/1993 Thus it would not be proper to award 10% more

C/FA/2944/2005 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2022

price rise for the said period, thus the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 17.00 in all per sq.mtr. I have gone through the facts of the case cited at bar and the present one which runs majourly parallel if we take a turn to the case of State of Madras Vs. A. M. Nanjan and others' reported in 1976 S.C. 473. It is held that, "award passed by the competent court, if comparable would be relevant for fixation of the compensation and even, if that award relates to the land in nearby area or town, can be considered comparable having regards to reasonable proximity. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat has also likewise held in the case of "Shivlal Deshavlal Shah Vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer" reported in 9 G. L. R. 752. In view of the two judicial pronouncement the previous judgment can be follow and accordingly I determined the market value to the aforesaid extent.

18. By the amendment carried out in the Land Acquisition Act in 1984 particularly in Sec. 23 (1-A) and 23(2) the benefits of 12% price difference on additional compensation and 30% amount of solatium is extended so the claimants thus they are entitled to get benefit of the above legal provision. The claimants have also claim the interest on the payable amount on turning to the previous of Sec. 28 the claimants are entitled to get the interest at the rate of 9% from the date of taking the possession or from the date of issuing the notification u/s 4 of the said act whichever is earlier for the year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% p.a. till realisation of the payable amount. In view of the above discussion, I answer to Issue no, 1 in the Affirmative and Issue no. 2 Accordingly."

7.In view of aforesaid reasoning given by Reference Court and considering evidence on record as well as decision of this Court in case of Shivlal Deshavlal Shah Vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 9 GLR 752 as well as in case of State of Madras Vs. A. M. Nanjan and others reported in AIR 1976 SC 473 where award passed by competent Court, if comparable would be relevant for fixation of compensation and even, if that award relates land in nearby area or town can be considered comparable having regards to reasonable proximity.

8.Therefore, considering aforesaid two decision, Reference

C/FA/2944/2005 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2022

Court has awarded Rs. 12.50ps per sqmt being additional compensation in favour of claimants with consequential benefits. According to my opinion, Reference Court has not committed any error which would require interference by this Court as finding of fact recorded by Reference Court is not baseless and perverse which require interference by this Court. The contentions raised by learned advocate Mr. Gupta can not be accepted, therefore, rejected.

4. Thus, the appeal of the very same Corporation was dismissed by the judgment and award awarding the additional compensation of Rs.12.50 was confirmed.

5. In the present case, since there is one year gap between Section 4 notification, the reference court has awarded additional compensation of Rs.14.55 by giving 10% rise. Section 4 notification issued in those matters, which have been confirmed by this Court was issued on 19.12.1993, whereas in the present case, Section 4 notification was issued on 14.10.1994. Thus, the present appeals are dismissed in view of the orders passed by this Court dated 06.03.2009 in First Appeal No.849 of 2009.

6. So far as the claimed interest is concerned, since the issue is pending before the Apex Court whether the interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act shall be awarded from the date of notification i.e. (date of possession), as interpreted by this Court or from the date of award, at this stage, the claimants shall be granted the interest as per the judgment and award. However, it is clarified that the same would be subject to the final outcome of the matters pending before the Supreme Court one of them being Special Leave to Appeal No.26817 of 2018 and SLP No.27049 of 2018. Accordingly, the reference court shall disburse the amount to the claimants, after proper verification.

C/FA/2944/2005 ORDER DATED: 20/09/2022

7. As a sequel, civil application stand disposed of as the same does not survive. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial court.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) ABHISHEK