Gujarat High Court
Spl Land Acquisition Officer vs Rajput Chandanji Bhavanji on 18 December, 2023
Author: Umesh A. Trivedi
Bench: Umesh A. Trivedi, Samir J. Dave
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1520 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5629 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5630 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5631 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5632 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5633 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5634 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5635 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5636 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5637 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5638 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE Sd/-
=====================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
=====================================================
Page 1 of 32
Downloaded on : Mon Dec 18 20:51:01 IST 2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
SPL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 other(s)
Versus
RAJPUT CHANDANJI BHAVANJI,
=====================================================
APPEARANCE IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1520 OF 2011:
DR. POOJA ASHAR, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
APPEARANCE IN FIRST APPEAL NOS.5629 TO 5638 OF 2019:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the APPELLANT(S)
DR. POOJA ASHAR, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR
DEFENDANT(S)
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMIR J. DAVE
Date : 18/12/2023
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI)
[1] All these appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act,
1894") read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") challenging the
judgment and award passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge (4th Fast Track Judge), Mahesana as well as
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana, though in different
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
Land Acquisition Reference Cases, since it pertains to
acquisition of agricultural lands of original claimants situated
at Village - Dhamanva, Taluka - Visnagar, District -
Mahesana, more or less having same date of Section 4
Notification, they are proposed to be disposed of by this
common judgment and order.
[2] So far as First Appeal No.1520 of 2011 is
concerned, it is filed by the State, being aggrieved by
judgment and award passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge (4th Fast Track Judge), Mahesana in Land
Acquisition Reference No.313 of 2008, whereby the Reference
filed by the respondent - original claimant therein challenging
the determination of market value of his acquired land by the
Land Acquisition Officer, though stated to be awarding
compensation at the rate of Rs.13 per sq. mtr. (verifying it
from the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, he
awarded Rs.9.90 per sq. mtr.) of the agricultural land acquired
of the respondent - claimant, claiming additional compensation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
and the learned Judge enhanced it to Rs.230 per sq. mtr. as
additional compensation bringing the market value of the
acquired land to be Rs.243/- per sq. mtr.
[3] In First Appeal No.1520 of 2011, the lands of
various Survey / Block numbers were notified to be acquired
vide Notification dated 03.07.2004, whereby lands of the
respondent - claimant in that appeal along with other
claimants came to be acquired. Declaration under Section 6 of
"the Act, 1894" came to be published in the Gazette on
18.01.2005. Land Acquisition Officer, pursuant to the
acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Case No.17 of
2004, after considering various aspects, more particularly
considering sale instance, out of very acquired land of Survey /
Block Nos.270, 271 and 273 (paiki), 13128 sq. mtrs. of
irrigated land came to be sold by one of the claimants by
registered sale deed dated 20.02.2002 for a consideration of
Rs.1,05,000/-, wherein part land of Survey / Block No.273 sold
under the said sale instance. From remaining land, again part
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
of land of Survey / Block No.273 came to be acquired,
whereas Survey / Block Nos.270 and 271 are adjoining lands to
the land sold and it is also proposed to be acquired under the
very same Section 4 Notification, though in the month of July,
2004. For determining the market value of the land, Land
Acquisition Officer considered the said sale instance out of very
acquired land nearly before two and half years prior to Section
4 Notification in this case. However, considering time gap
between sale out of acquired land and Section 4 Notification in
this case, Land Acquisition Officer increased the market value
determined in the sale deed to the extent of 12% for two years
and thus, he determined the market value of the land acquired
at the rate of Rs.9.90 per sq. mtr.
[4] The Land Acquisition Officer declared his award
determining the said market value of the acquired land in
Land Acquisition Case No.17 of 2004 dated 28.02.2005.
Though, the impugned judgment and award in First Appeal
No.1520 of 2011 refers the date of Land Acquisition Officer
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
award to be 24.09.2004, appears to be incorrect as in the said
village there were different 4 land acquisition cases, whereby
different parcels of land came to be acquired and 4 different
awards came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in
respect thereof. Though records and proceedings does not
contain copy of award passed under Section 11 of "the Act,
1894" by the Land Acquisition Officer, learned Assistant
Government Pleader provided the copy thereof and which is
not disputed by the learned advocate representing the
respondent - claimant herein.
[5] Lands of Survey / Block Nos.230, 270 (paiki), 271
(paiki), 273 (paiki), 274, 232, 276, 231 and 275 were notified
under Section 4 of "the Act, 1894" to be acquired for the
public purpose for construction of Sujlam Suflam Spreading
Canal, chain No.194.08 to 194.60 kilometers.
[6] From the judgment and award impugned in this
First Appeal No.1520 of 2011, it appears that claimant therein
filed Land Reference Case No.313 of 2008, whereas other
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
claimants of different lands notified under the same
Notification filed Reference Cases being LAR Nos.782 to 788 of
2009 (Old Nos. being LAR Nos.718 to 724 of 2004). However,
aggrieved by judgment and award rendered in LAR Nos. 782 to
788 of 2009, two of the claimants (LAR Nos. 783 and 784 of
2009) preferred First Appeal Nos.5634 and 5635 of 2019
respectively in delay, which after condonation of it came to be
admitted by the Court. Thus, lands notified for acquisition
under Land Acquisition Case No.17 of 2004 before the Land
Acquisition Officer, two of the claimants have preferred
aforesaid appeal being First Appeal Nos. 5634 and 5635 of
2019 for enhancement of the compensation as learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana, by his impugned
judgment and award dated 09.04.2012 in LAR Nos. 782 to 788
of 2009, awarded additional compensation of Rs.97.10 per sq.
mtr., bringing market value of the land to be Rs.107 per sq.
mtr., for enhancement of it, if not at a higher rate at least at
the rate of 243 per sq. mtrs, as granted by the claimants of
the very same Section 4 Notification in LAR No.313 of 2008,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
which was determined by the learned Reference Court prior to
the decision impugned in these two appeals.
[7] Lands of very same village again notified to be
acquired vide Notification under Section 4 of "the Act, 1894"
dated June, 2004 (as exact date is not coming out from the
award), the Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the
objections as also various documents, determined the market
price for the lands under acquisition of Survey / Block Nos.
306, 309(paiki), 307 (paiki), 310 (paiki), 314 (paiki), 315, 313
and 321 to be Rs.9.90 per sq. mtrs of the very same village -
Dhamanva under Land Acquisition Case No.18 of 2004, by his
award under Section 11 of "the Act, 1894" dated 27.9.2004.
Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Land Acquisition
Officer, original claimants preferred Reference before the Court
and the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana,
vide his judgment and order dated 09.04.2012 passed in LAR
Nos.654 to 662 of 2009, awarded Rs.97.10 as additional
compensation bringing market price for the land acquired to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
Rs.107 per sq. mtr. Being aggrieved by said judgment and
award passed by the Reference Court, the claimants have
preferred different appeals being Appeal Nos.1466 of 2022,
5632 of 2019, 1464 of 2022, 1422 of 2022, 5633 of 2022,
1476 of 2022, 5630 of 2019 and 5631 of 2019, out of which,
number of appeals filed in the year 2022 were not provided to
the Court, while hearing the connected appeal, those appeals
could not be ordered to be tagged and notified for the purpose
of hearing before the Court. However, the appeals filed in the
year 2019 have been notified along with First Appeal No.1520
of 2011, as ordered by this Court.
[8] Again lands of Survey / Block Nos.328, 327 and
329 notified to be acquired of the very same Village-
Dhamanva for the very same purpose, for which, Notification
under Section 4 of "the Act, 1894" came to be issued in June,
2004 (though no exact date is given therein), which was
numbered as Land Acquisition Case No.19 of 2004 before the
Land Acquisition Officer. That, the Land Acquisition Officer,
after considering the objections and various aspects, again
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
determined the market value of the land under acquisition in
that case at the rate of Rs.9.90 per sq. mtr. vide his award
dated 27.09.2004. The claimants, being aggrieved by the award
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, made Reference to the
concerned Court for the purpose of enhancement of
compensation for the lands acquired. The Reference Cases
filed by the claimants therein came to be numbered as LAR
Nos.663 to 665 of 2009 and the learned 4 th Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Mahesana, vide judgment and award dated
09.04.2012, ordered to pay additional compensation at the rate
of Rs.97.10 per sq. mtr. to the claimants therein bringing
market price of the lands acquired to be Rs.107 per sq. mtr.
Being aggrieved thereby, the claimants preferred First Appeal
Nos.1426 of 2022, 5629 of 2019 and 1433 of 2022. As stated
hereinabove, number of the appeals preferred by the claimants
in the year 2022 were not provided to the Court and therefore,
they were not ordered to be notified for hearing along with
present group of appeals. However, out of three appeals
preferred by the claimants, one was filed in the year 2019
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
being First Appeal No.5629 of 2019 and that was ordered to
be heard along with First Appeal No.1520 of 2011.
[9] Again lands of very same village bearing Survey /
Block Nos.362(paiki), 363 and 366 were notified to be acquired
under Section 4 Notification and Notification under Section 4
came to be issued in the month of June, 2004 (though no
exact date is mentioned in the award) for the very same
purpose and of the very same village under Land Acquisition
Case No.20 of 2004. After considering the objections and
following procedure prescribed under "the Act, 1894", the
Land Acquisition Officer determined the compensation for the
lands acquired at the rate of Rs.9.90 per sq. mtr. Being
aggrieved by the same, the claimants therein filed Reference
under Section 18 of "the Act, 1894", which were numbered as
Land Acquisition Reference Nos.2093 to 2095 of 2009 for
enhancement of the compensation. The learned 4 th Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana, vide his judgment and award
dated 09.04.2012, determined the additional compensation at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
the rate of Rs.97.10 per sq. mtr, bringing the market price for
the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.107 per sq. mtrs. Being
aggrieved by the same, again for the purpose of enhancement
of the compensation, the claimants therein preferred First
Appeal Nos.5636 to 5638 of 2019, which have been ordered to
be notified and heard with the main appeal being First Appeal
No.1520 of 2011.
[10] Thus, for the lands of Village - Dhamanva, Taluka
- Visnagar, though notified for the purpose of acquisition on
different dates, the gap in between two Notifications appears
to be very marginal (in few days) and it has been acquired for
the very same purpose; it would be profitable to determine all
these appeals together. However, the appeals preferred by
some of the claimants in the year 2022, could not be notified
for want of information supplied by the learned advocate
representing the claimants, this Court proposes to determine
the aforesaid appeals notified before it.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
[11] Since Mr. Ashok Prajapati, learned advocate appears
for the original claimants in all these group of appeals, either
he may be respondent in First Appeal No.1520 of 2011 or
appellant in other appeals, he is heard at length.
[12] So far as First Appeal No.1520 of 2011 is
concerned, according to the submission of learned advocate for
the respondent - claimant, it was first decided by the Division
Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 03.08.2015,
however, the respondent - claimant, being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the same, filed Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Diary No.42443 of 2019 before the Supreme Court. However,
vide judgment dated 10.02.2020, the Supreme Court remitted
the matter to this Court to decide afresh in accordance with
law, as agreed by the parties, whilst setting aside the aforesaid
judgment and order of High Court. Therefore, the said appeal
is being heard afresh in accordance with law.
[13] Mr. Ashok Prajapati, learned advocate for the
respondent - claimant therein vehemently submitted that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer as also
enhanced by the Reference Court is inadequate and doesn't
represent the true and correct market value of the land.
Therefore, not only the appeal filed by the State challenging
the impugned judgment and award in First Appeal No.1520 of
11 is required to be modified and also compensation is
required to be enhanced to the extent of Rs.500 per sq. mtr.
as it has been done in the cases of acquisition of lands of
other nearby villages. He has vehemently submitted that
appeals preferred by the claimants is also required to be
allowed and compensation therein is also required to be
enhanced. He has vehemently submitted that not only First
Appeal No.1520 of 2011 is required to be dismissed, rest of
the appeals are required to be allowed and compensation if not
enhanced at the rate of Rs.500 per sq. mtr, it should be at par
with the compensation awarded in the award for the lands of
very same village, which is impugned in First Appeal No.1520
of 2011 at the rate of Rs.243 per sq. mtr. For claiming
enhanced compensation, he has relied on the judgment passed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
by this Court dated 23.08.2019 in First Appeal Nos.2513 to
2533 of 2011, wherein compensation at the rate of Rs.500 per
sq. mtr. came to be awarded for the lands acquired of Village
- Vasai for the very public purpose of Sujlam Suflam
Spreading Canal vide Notification dated 03.07.2004 i.e. of the
nearby date in this case. According to his submission, Village
- Vasai is also, if not adjoining, a nearby village and
considering permissible deduction about the situation of land
and the advantages / shortcomings available to both of the
villages, suitable reduction/increase be permitted and appeals
be allowed.
[14] He has also relied on a decision rendered by the
Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 19.03.2021
in First Appeal Nos. 1796 to 1802 of 2017, 1836 to 1843 of
2017, 1846 to 1858 of 2017 and 2850 of 2017, submitted that
this Court, despite the market value determined to be Rs.107
per sq. mtr. for the lands of Village - Dhadhusan, Taluka -
Visnagar for the very same date of Section 4 Notification to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
03.07.2004 and lands acquired for the very same purpose,
enhanced the compensation and determined the market price of
the lands to be Rs.500 per sq. mtr. and even for village -
Dhadhusan, which is also nearby village to Village -
Dhamanva, lands of which are acquired in the present case.
[15] Relying on the decision in the case of Mehrawal
Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot and others Versus State of
Punjab and others reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432, more
particularly para -17 thereof, it is submitted that as per the
general rule, highest of the exemplars has to be considered and
accepted, when the land is being compulsorily acquired from a
person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land
in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide
transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a
willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. He has
also relied on a decision in the case of Union of India Vs.
Harinder Pal Singh & Ors reported in (2005) 12 SCC 564, for a
proposition that for acquisition of land in five different
villages, sale instance in adjoining village taking into
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
consideration similarity of the acquired lands abandoning the
belting system and awarding compensation at uniform rate
irrespective of their nature or quality approved by the Supreme
Court and therefore, judgments and orders of this Court
referred to hereinabove in the case of Village - Dhadhusan as
also Vasai, being different villages, the compensation awarded
therein being Rs.500 per sq. mtr. be awarded to the claimants
and appeal be allowed to that extent preferred by the
claimants and appeal preferred by the State for reduction of
compensation be rejected. He has further, relying on a decision
in the case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and Others Versus
Executive Engineer, Gujarat and Another reported in (2001) 9
SCC 584, submitted that mere distance between two acquired
lands of different villages, if similar in quality including its
potentiality, should not deter the Court from awarding same
compensation, even if, distance is of to be 5 km. in between
them.
[16] He has further submitted that the judgments and
orders of this Court, which are relied on by him for seeking
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
enhancement of compensation to the tune of Rs.500 per sq.
mtr., since appeal is preferred before the Supreme Court,
hearing of these appeals is requested to be deferred. No other
contentions are raised by him. On the aforesaid contentions, he
submitted that the appeal preferred by the State be dismissed
and appeals preferred by the claimants be allowed.
[17] As against that, learned Assistant Government
Pleader Dr. Pooja Ashar, vehemently submitted that there
cannot be any two different rate of compensation for the lands
acquired of very same village, that too nearby, one
determining it at the rate of Rs.243 per sq. mtr. and for others
at the rate of Rs.107 per sq. mtr., as determined by the Court.
It is submitted by the learned AGP that there is no evidence
led by the claimants to show that lands of Village - Vasai or
Dhadhusan are similar in every respect and they are adjoining.
As such, those awards were never placed for consideration
before the Reference Court and here also it has not been
brought on record by recognized mode, they may not be
considered for that reason also. However, it is further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
submitted that those two villages, determination of market
value therein by the Reference Court or the High Court relied
on, fall in a different taluka at all, though for the very same
public purpose as it is a public purpose of constructing canal
passing through so many villages, Section 4 Notification maybe
of the very same day, a market price determined at the entry
point of the canal and to the end point of the canal, which is
running into kilometers, maybe Notification under Section 4 is
published on the very same day for a whole stretch, no one
compensation can be awarded for the different villages for the
land situated in different Talukas or Districts.
[18] It is further submitted that reliance placed on the
decision rendered in First Appeal Nos.2513 to 2533 of 2011 is
misplaced as judgment rendered in said appeals is stayed by an
order dated 03.07.2023 by the Supreme Court and therefore,
reliance placed by the claimants praying for compensation at
the rate of Rs.500 per sq. mtr., which is awarded for Village -
Vasai, Taluka - Vijapur, is misplaced as it is already stayed.
Reliance placed on the decision of this Court in First Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
Nos.1796 to 1802 of 2017 and other connected appeals also
cannot be relied on as the operation of the said judgment and
order dated 19.03.2021 is ordered to be stayed by the Supreme
Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.11671 to 11699 of
2023, where claimants have also preferred cross Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No.14749 to 14823 of 2023.
[19] Referring to the deposition of the claimant at
Exhibit -10, it is submitted that Villages - Dhamanva and
Padhariya are having common boundary and though claimant
stays at Village - Padhariya, he owns land at Village -
Dhamanva. As such, in the deposition correct Land Acquisition
Case No.17 of 2004 is referred and date of Section 4
Notification is referred to be 24.06.2004. Therefore, it is
submitted that what is recorded in the impugned judgment and
award with regard to date of Section 4 Notification, all the
lands of Village - Dhamanva have come to be acquired, maybe
under different Land Acquisition Cases, date of Section 4
Notification in all these appeals appears to be same. It is
further submitted that in the deposition before the Court, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
respondent - claimant in First Appeal No.1520 of 2011 has
stated about similarity of lands in between Village - Padhariya
and Dhamanva and nothing more. It is further submitted that
land acquired is at least 4 kilometer interior to the public road
and there is no industrial area even surrounding village, the
lands acquired have no even non-agricultural potentiality when
claimants have not claimed compensation based thereon,
learned Judge could not have enhanced the compensation.
[20] Drawing attention of the Court to the impugned
judgment and award, it is submitted that the claimants have
relied on previous awards at Exhibits - 15, 16 and 27,
rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 44 to 59 of 2008
in respect of Village - Dharusana, Land Acquisition Reference
Nos.65 to 70 of 2008 in respect of lands acquired of Village -
Kherva and Land Acquisition Reference Nos.329 to 332 of 2008
in respect of Village - Padhariya, whereby Reference Court
determined the market price for the lands acquired at the rate
of Rs.257, 271 and 243 per sq. mtr. respectively. However,
according to submission of learned AGP, since lands of Village
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
- Padhariya and lands of Village - Dhamanva, which are
acquired, are having common boundary even according to the
submission of claimants, the learned Judge relied on previous
award Exhibit - 27 rendered in Land Acquisition Reference
No.329 to 332 of 2008 arising from the acquisition of lands of
Village - Padhariya, as it was also having nearly similar date
of Section 4 Notification being 03.07.2004. Market value
determined therein is awarded by the learned Judge relying on
the same.
[21] Drawing attention of the Court to the judgment of
this Court rendered in First Appeal Nos.1545 to 1557 of 2010
dated 17.03.2011, it is submitted that previous award passed
by the Reference Court Exhibit -27, which is relied on by the
claimants, came to be challenged by the State and this Court
allowed the appeal partly and reduced the compensation
determining additional compensation to be Rs.107 per sq. mtr.
for the lands acquired of Village - Padhariya. Not only that,
according to her submission, even belated challenge to the
same before the Supreme Court by the claimants therein came
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
to be dismissed, not only on the ground of delay but also on
merits as it is clear from the order rendered in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) Diary No.27005 of 2019. Learned AGP has also
submitted that even the judgment rendered in First Appeal
Nos.761 to 765 of 2011, which is relied on by this Court in
First Appeal No.1545 of 2010 for determination of market
value of land of village - Padhariya, challenge to the same by
the claimants has also met with the very same fate. She has
further submitted that mere pendency of proceedings before
the Supreme Court on the previous orders of this Court relied
on by the present claimant, though no proper procedure is
followed to bring on record, is no ground to defer the hearing
which is already concluded, more particularly, when those
judgments and orders have been stayed by the Supreme Court
and appeals are pending, they cannot be pressed into service
by the claimant. Therefore, it is submitted that appeal filed by
the State being First Appeal No.1520 of 2011 be partly allowed
and compensation be reduced bringing the market value of the
land to be Rs.120 per sq. mtr. as it has been done by this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
Court and even confirmed by the Supreme Court. She has
further submitted that since the appeals preferred by the
original claimants, though belatedly, having no scope for
further enhancement as the Reference Court has already
awarded additional compensation of Rs.107 over and above the
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, those
appeals preferred by the claimants be dismissed.
[22] Having heard the learned advocates appearing for
the parties and going through the impugned judgments and
awards as also records and proceedings and the precedents
relied on it, this Court is called upon to determine the market
value of the lands of Village - Dhamanva, which have been
acquired for the public purpose of construction of Sujlam
Suflam Spreading Canal, for which, Section 4 Notification has
come to be issued on 24.06.2004 / 03.07.2004.
[23] Examining the impugned judgment and award in
First Appeal No.1520 of 2011, it is very clear that claimant
himself has relied on a previous award vide Exhibit - 27,
being judgment and award in Land Acquisition Reference
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
Nos.329 to 332 of 2008 in respect of lands acquired of Village
- Padhariya, which is claimed to be adjoining to Village -
Dhamanva and date of Section 4 Notification is also similar,
that can be considered to be a reliable exemplar for
determination of the market value of the lands acquired of
Village - Dhamanva. So long as under the said judgment and
award, market value of the lands was determined at the rate
of Rs.243 per sq. mtr, it was relied by the claimants as also
by the learned Judge therein and an award came to be passed
in Land Reference Case No.313 of 2008, which is determined
on 31.03.2009. However, when appeal came to be filed
challenging the said impugned judgment and award and
compensation is reduced, when the previous award relied on at
Exhibit -27 rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.329 to
332 of 2008 by way of First Appeal No.1545 to 1548 of 2008,
it came to be reduced awarding additional compensation at the
rate of Rs.107 per sq. mtr, the claimants started singing
different tune in these appeals.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
[24] First of all considering the previous award Exhibit -
27 passed in respect of Village - Padhariya, determining the
market price of the land under acquisition as on 03.07.2004
being date of Section 4 Notification, final market value of the
land is determined by the High Court to be Rs.120 per sq.
mtr. and the said order is also confirmed by the Supreme
Court, that too, in an appeal filed at the instance of claimants
dismissed, not only on the ground of delay but on merit as
well, there is no reason to delve deep into the case. Hence,
impugned judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition
Reference No.313 of 2008 against which First Appeal No.1520
of 2011 is filed, is required to be allowed and compensation is
required to be reduced to that extent.
[25] However, considering the submissions of learned
advocate for the claimants who pray for enhancement of
compensation based on other awards as referred to hereinabove
in the case of Village - Dhadhusan as also Vasai, not only
situated in different talukas, those judgments and orders passed
by this Court have come to be stayed by the Supreme Court,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
the claimants cannot rely on the same for determination of
market value of the lands under acquisition. Not only that,
those judgments and awards have not been brought on record
as per permissible mode. Despite the same, when those
previous awards even rendered by this Court determining the
higher compensation, of course four different villages which
are far way from the land under consideration and no case
pleaded in the pleadings or the evidence led before the
Reference Court, when operation of those judgments and orders
is stayed by the Supreme Court, it is of no help to the
claimants.
[26] Furthermore, if the award passed by the Land
Acquisition Officer is seen, he determined the market value of
the lands under acquisition based on best exemplar being sale
deed itself, that too, of the part of very acquired land, which
came to be sold by one of the claimants nearly two and a half
years prior to date of Section 4 Notification in the present
cases and considering it even 12% increase for nearly 2 years
in the market value of the lands added to the sell price by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
Land Acquisition Officer, which comes to Rs.9.90 per sq. mtr.,
it requires no further inquiry into the determination of market
value. As coming out from the award, lands of Survey / Block
Nos. 270, 271 and 273 (paiki), admeasuring 13128 sq. mtrs of
irrigated land, came to be sold by registered sale deed dated
20.02.2002 for an amount of Rs.1,05,000/-. As such, said sale
deed has not been brought on record, though in view of
Section 51A of "the Act, 1894", production of certified copy
of sale deed even without examining vendor or vendee would
be admissible in evidence. Even determination of market value
of the lands under acquisition cannot go beyond Rs.10 per sq.
mtr. and it has already been awarded Rs.107 per sq. mtr
additional, there is no scope left for any interference, that too,
in absence of appeal preferred by the State in respect of
judgments and awards which are challenged by the claimants
for the purpose of enhancement of compensation. However, we
have neither relied on value shown in the sale deed nor award
passed by Land Acquisition Officer is taken into consideration
on that aspect for determination of these appeals.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
[27] Reliance placed on the decision of the Supreme
Court by the learned advocate for the claimants, there is no
quarrel on the principle enunciated therein, however the said
decisions are not applicable in the facts and evidence brought
before the Court by the claimants in this case. Reliance placed
in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot
and others (Supra), precedent that highest of exemplar is to be
considered in the cases of more than one sale transactions
which is not the case here. At the same time, there is not the
case here that for the lands under acquisition of very Village -
Padhariya, more than one previous awards are before the
Court, that too, of the same date of Section 4 Notification so
as to consider even highest value of exemplar. The decision in
the case of Union of India Vs. Harinder Pal Singh & Ors.
(Supra) relied on is also of no help to the claimants for the
simple reason that if lands of five different villages contiguous
in nature and having all the similar advantages, the
comparable sales method adopted therein for determination of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
market value at a uniform rate may be approved by the Court.
Reliance placed on the decision in the case of Thakarsibhai
Devjibhai and Others (Supra) is also no help to the claimants
for the simple reason that for the quality and potentiality of
the land acquired, there is no evidence led before the Court so
as to claim compensation based on previous award in the case
of far away other villages of different Talukas and therefore,
there is no quarrel with regard to principle enunciated therein.
Therefore, the said judgment cannot be pressed into service by
the claimants for seeking higher compensation.
[28] However, in the present case there are no sale
instances, despite availability, that too, of the acquired lands
of one of the claimants i.e. claimant of First Appeal No.5634
of 2019 produced before the Court for the determination of the
market value of the lands under acquisition. At the same time,
previous award passed by the Reference Court pressed into
service by claimants and relied on by the learned Judge for
determination of market value came to be interfered with by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
the higher forum and compensation is reduced and if that
compensation is awarded by the Reference Court, coupled with
the fact that the said judgment rendered in Appeal by the
High Court is even confirmed on merit by the Supreme Court,
we see no reason to interfere with the appeals preferred by the
claimants being First Appeal Nos.5629 to 5638 of 2019.
However, with a view to see the uniformity in the market
price of the lands under acquisition as on the date of Section 4
Notification in a previous award relied on by the High Court,
a market value is determined at the rate of Rs.120 per sq.
mtr., the additional compensation is required to be suitably
modified so as to bring in conformity with market price of
Rs.120 per sq. mtr.
[29] The appeals being First Appeal Nos.5629 to 5638 of
2019, therefore, partly allowed to the extent that instead of
Rs.97.10 to be paid to the claimants as additional
compensation, the respondent - State is hereby directed to pay
additional compensation at the rate of Rs.110.10 per sq. mtr
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1520/2011 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 18/12/2023
undefined
with permissible statutory benefits under the law. No other
part of the judgment and award is interfered with except
stated above. Difference of market price determined
hereinabove is required to be paid with statutory benefits since
additional compensation at the rate of Rs.97.10 per sq. mtr. is
deposited, acquiring body is required to deposit only the
difference as determined hereinabove.
[30] However, we allow the appeal being First Appeal
No.1520 of 2011 to the extent that market value of the lands
under acquisition would be Rs.120 per sq. mtr. of Village -
Dhamanva as on the date of Section 4 Notification to be
26.04.2004 /03.07.2004. If any higher amount is paid than the
market value determined by this Court, the claimants are
directed to refund the same within a period of three months
from today.
(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J.)
(SAMIR J. DAVE,J.)
Lalji Desai
