Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Sipai Husainbhai Lalabhai on 19 April, 2023
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/FA/2127/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2127 of 2017
==========================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 other(s)
Versus
SIPAI HUSAINBHAI LALABHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR JAY MEHTA, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 19/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. At the outset, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
have submitted that the present first appeal is left out from the group,
which is already decided by this Court vide judgment dated 11.04.2023
passed in First Appeal No.1316 of 2015 and allied matters. It is submitted
that the present first appeal may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
judgment.
2. In the present first appeal, we have noticed that the acquisition of
the lands pertain to the Village Agod, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana and
Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the
Act") has been issued on 10.06.2011, whereas Section 6 notification
under the Act is issued on 17.12.2011.
3. In the judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed in First Appeal No.1316
of 2015 and allied matters, it is noticed by us that for the acquisition of
the land of village is the very same village by the same acquiring body.
The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 31.01.2011
C/FA/2127/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023
and Section 6 notification of the Act was published on 31.03.2012. Thus,
it would be very minuscule difference between two acquisition land. By
the judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed in First Appeal No.1316 of 2015
and allied matters, this Court has held thus:-
"6. The issue, which requires deliberation by this Court is
whether the Reference Court has fallen in error or not in
considering sale instances, which are prior to four months of
issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is not the
case of the acquiring body, either before this Court or before the
Reference Court, that the Sale Deeds which are entered prior to
four months from the publication of Section 4 Notification are in
any manner, executed only for the purpose of defeating the price
of acquisition or for claiming enhanced compensation. No
evidence is led before the Reference Court that such Sale Deeds
are only entered in order to frustrate the compensation awarded
by acquiring body and, hence, while examining the judgment and
award of the Reference Court in First Appeals, we cannot delve
into such question of fact, which is raised before this Court, in
absence of any contention raised before the Reference Court in
this regard. Thus, in our opinion, sale instances is the best
evidence which has been precisely relied by the Reference Court
for determining the amount of compensation.
7. With regard to second aspect of discarding evidence of the
judgment and award dated 12.3.2012 passed in Land Acquisition
Reference Case No.1280 to 1292 of 2003 relating to the land
acquired of the very same village, this Court has perused the
said award. Bare perusal of the award reveals that while placing
reliance on the earlier award passed in Land Acquisition
Reference Case No.1280 of 2003 to 1292 of 2003, which was
decided by the judgment and award dated 19.2.2008, for the
lands which have been acquired of the very same village, the
Section 4 Notification was published on 7.12.1999. In the said
case, being Land Acquisition Reference No.939 of 2009 to 961
of 2009, which has been decided by judgment dated 12.3.2012,
Section 4 Notification was published on 1.6.2005. In juxtaposition
to the aforesaid notifications to the Notification issued in the
present case under Section 4 of the Act on 31.1.2012, it can be
noticed that there is a time gap of eleven years and seven years
respectively from the Notification dated 31.1.2012 and the
publications of Notification dated 7.12.1999 and 1.6.2005. At this
stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations"
C/FA/2127/2017 ORDER DATED: 19/04/2023
4. Thus, the present first appeal is disposed of in terms of the
judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed in First Appeal No.1316 of 2015 and
allied matters.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
ABHISHEK/PC-1
