Amrutlal Narhari Bhatt vs Officer On Special Duty, Unit-3 ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2881 Guj

        C/FA/2080/2013                          ORDER DATED: 12/04/2023




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2080 of 2013
                              With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
                          NO. 1 of 2019
               In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2080 of 2013
                              With
                 R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 306 of 2014
                              With
                 R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 307 of 2014
                              With
                 R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 308 of 2014
                              With
                 R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 309 of 2014
                              With
                 R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 310 of 2014
                              With
                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1150 of 2015
==========================================================
                  AMRUTLAL NARHARI BHATT
                           Versus
 OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY, UNIT-3 (LAND ACQUISITION) & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
VIDIT S SHARMA(7365) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RUTVIJ M BHATT(2697) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
==========================================================

     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

                            Date : 12/04/2023
                             ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. The first appeals emanate from the judgment and order dated 18.11.2011 passed in Land Reference Case (old No.20 of 1990) No.10 of 2002, wherein and whereby the land reference cases have been rejected by the court of learned 2 nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Valsad Camp, Vapi.

C/FA/2080/2013 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2023

2. Being aggrieved, the claimants, who had claimed Rs.100/- per sq.mtrs of Village Sarigam, Taluka Umargam, District Valsad, which was acquired by the respondent no.2-GIDC for industrial purpose. Section 4 notification under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") was published on 23.11.1984 and Section 6 notification under the Act was published on 28.07.1987. The hearing took place on 17.11.1987 and under Section 9(3)(4) of the Act, the claimants i.e. the appellants claimed compensation for the acquisition of land to the tune of Rs.100/- per sq. mtrs. and solatium at the rate of 30%. The Land Acquisition Officer declared its award on 01.08.1989 and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per Are, which comes to Rs.2.50 paisa per Are sq. mtr. Being aggrieved, the appellants filed application under Section 18 of the Act, which has been rejected by the court below and hence, the present first appeals.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Vidit Sharma, while referring to the impugned judgment and order, has submitted that the reference court was impressed with the deposition of the Land Acquisition Officer recorded below Exh.172 while rejecting the reference proceedings. He has submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has deposed that he has verified the sale deeds of the adjoining village and on verification of such sale deeds, it is deposed by him that the price fixed for such acquisition was just and proper. It is submitted that in fact the right to cross- examination was also closed by the reference court and since the oral evidence of such officer has been accepted without verification of calling upon the sale deeds, on which reliance is placed by the Land Acquisition Officer for beyond fixing the price of the land, the impugned judgment

C/FA/2080/2013 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2023

could not have been passed without verification of such sale deeds.

3.1. Learned advocate Mr.Sharma has further submitted that in fact by way of Civil Application No.1 of 2019, the applicants have produced the additional evidence of the sale deeds of the adjoining village. It is submitted that such copies of the various sale deeds were produced by the appellants in the year 2016. It is submitted that the sale deeds pertains to the years 1981, 1982 and sale deed dated 01.12.1984 of Village Fansa. Thus, it is submitted by him that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and the matters may be remanded. He has further submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence with regard to the crop taken by the present appellants of Mango and Chiku twice in a year and hence, the impugned order may be set aside and the matters may be remanded.

4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Chinmay Gandhi appearing for the respondent-acquiring body has submitted that the impugned judgment and order does not require any interference since the facts, which have been produced by the present appellants before the court below, have been appropriately accepted and the Land Acquisition Officer by placing reliance on the sale deeds of the adjoining villages, has precisely calculated and determined the price of the land at the rate of Rs.250/- per Are. It is submitted that the appellants-claimants did not produce any evidence before the court below and whatever evidence, which was produced before the court below has been appropriately appreciated. It is submitted that the first appeals may not be entertained as the order of compensation is appropriately passed.

C/FA/2080/2013 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2023

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

6. The facts, which are established from the pleadings, are that the lands of the appellants in Village Sarigam, Taluka Umargam, District Valsad have been acquired by the respondent-GIDC for industrial purpose, for which Section 4 notification under the Act was issued on 23.11.1984 and Section 6 notification under the Act was issued on 28.07.1987 and the Land Acquisition Officer has declared the award on 01.08.1989 awarding the compensation of the land acquired at the rate of Rs.250/- per Are, which comes to Rs.2.50 per sq. mtr.

7. Being aggrieved, the appellants-claimants initiated the reference proceedings before the court below. However, the reference court has rejected the land reference. It is noticed by us that the court below primarily was impressed with the oral evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer. The Land Acquisition Officer was examined below Exh.172.

8. We have gone through the deposition of the Land Acquisition Officer and a bare perusal of the same reveals that he has stated that he had verified the sale deeds of the adjoining lands and on verification of such sale deeds, it is deposed by him that the price of the lands, which have been acquired, have been appropriately fixed. It is also noticed that the reference court has closed the right of the cross-examination on 23.09.2011 and the deposition was recorded on 26.09.2011. Thus, the reference Court was required to examine such sale deeds, on which reliance is placed by the Land Acquisition Officer for fixing the price of land, which was acquired by the acquiring body and by taking the

C/FA/2080/2013 ORDER DATED: 12/04/2023

deposition as gospel truth, the reference court has rejected the reference proceedings.

9. We have noticed that the mistake is also committed by the present appellants-claimants by not filing application for cross-examination, however, that would not absolve the reference court from calling upon the acquiring body to submit the sale deeds, on which reliance was placed by the acquiring body in fixing the price of the land at the rate of Rs.250/- per Are. No documentary evidence in this regard has surfaced on record and hence, in wake of such lacuna having been committed by the reference court, we are inclined to remand the matters to the reference court to decide the reference proceedings afresh.

10. Hence, the impugned judgment and order is hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the court below. The reference proceedings are ordered to be restored to its original file. Such reference proceedings shall be decided preferably within a period of six months after the receipt of the order of this Court. It will be open for the respective parties to lead further evidence, if they so desire. The reference court shall accordingly consider the same in accordance with law. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned reference court.

11. As a sequel, civil application does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

Sd/-

(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J) ABHISHEK/1