Babubhai Haribhai Gol vs Deputy Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 52 Guj

     C/FA/4806/2022                               JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4806 of 2022


FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL                               Sd/-

==========================================================

1    Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
     to see the judgment ?                                              NO

2    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
                                                                        NO
3    Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
     of the judgment ?                                                  NO

4    Whether this case involves a substantial question
     of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution                NO
     of India or any order made thereunder ?

==========================================================
                          BABUBHAI HARIBHAI GOL
                                 Versus
                            DEPUTY COLLECTOR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAN B NAIK(3210) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR ASHUTOSH DAVE, AGP for Respondent State
ADVANCE COPY SERVED TO GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL

                              Date : 03/01/2023

                             ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Kunan Naik appearing for the appellant and

C/FA/4806/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2023

learned AGP Mr.Ashutosh Dave appearing on behalf of the respondent State.

2. Admit. Issue notice of admission to the respondent, returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Mr.Dave waives service of notice of admission on behalf of the respondent State. With the consent of the parties, the present appeal is taken up for final hearing.

3. By way of this appeal, the appellant challenges an order passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Court at Amreli in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.108 of 1999 dated 21.3.2018, whereby the learned Civil Court had awarded an amount of Rs.30/- per sq. mtr., for irrigated agricultural land/Bagayat land and Rs.20/- per sq. mtr., for non-irrigated agricultural land/Jirayat land for the land which had been acquired by the State Government.

3.1. It appears that the State, for the purpose of "Vadi Irrigation Project" had published Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) in the Government Gazette on 11.4.1996 and whereas consequent thereupon, while the land had been compulsorily acquired, the Land Acquisition Officer had published his award, whereby the compensation for Bagayat land was awarded at the rate of Rs.1,050/- per Are i.e. Rs.10.50 per sq. mtr., and whereas for Jirayat land the compensation was fixed at Rs.700/- per Are i.e. Rs.7/- per sq. mtr. The said award was passed on 26.7.1998. It appears that the land owners, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, had preferred the Land Acquisition Reference Case No.108 of 1999, wherein the impugned judgement had been passed by the learned Civil Court.

C/FA/4806/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2023

4. Learned Advocate Mr.Naik appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the outset, would draw the attention of this Court to a judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 7.8.2018 in First Appeal No.2825 of 2012 and allied matters and whereas, it is submitted by the learned Advocate Mr.Naik for the appellant that the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench, wherein a decision of the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Reference Case No.68 of 1999 and allied matters, challenging a common award was with regard to the very selfsame Notification under Section 4 of the Act, more particularly with regard to the Vadi Irrigation Project. Learned Advocate would further submit that as a matter of fact, while the land of a few villages had been acquired for the purpose of Vadi Irrigation Project and whereas the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench inter alia refers to First Appeal arising from the Land Reference Cases pertaining to the land situated at Village Nana Bhandariya and whereas, according to the learned Advocate Mr.Naik, more particularly as could be made out even from the impugned judgement that the land in question also is situated at Village Nana Bhandariya. Learned Advocate, having regard to the absolutely similarly situated land where the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench had been passed, would submit that the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench would be applicable with full force to the present case also and whereas the learned Advocate would submit that the present appellant may be awarded the same compensation as awarded by the Hon'ble Division Bench.

5. Submissions of the learned Advocate Mr.Naik for the appellant could not be opposed by the learned AGP Mr.Dave, who to a pointed query of this Court, has submitted that the judgement of the Hon'ble Division Bench dated 7.8.2018 had not been challenged by the State Government. Learned AGP Mr.Dave referring to an earlier order dated 22.12.2022

C/FA/4806/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2023

passed by the learned Coordinate Bench, would submit that while the said decision had been challenged by some of the claimants and whereas the Hon'ble Apex Court had deemed it appropriate to dismiss the said SLP and whereas it is reiterated that the said decision had not been challenged by the State Government.

6. Having regard to the said circumstances, more particularly since the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench has been passed in a comparable instance and furthermore, since it appears that the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has attained finality, more particularly as regards the State Government is concerned, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, for the observations and reasons as referred to by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the present appeal also requires consideration.

7. At this stage, this Court deems it appropriate to rely upon the observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench, more particularly observations at paragraphs 3, 3.1, 66 and 67, which observations being relevant for the present purpose, since they relate to lands of Village Nana Bhandariya, are quoted herein below for benefit:-

"3. First Appeals No.2825 of 2012 to 2859 of 2012 arise out of the common judgment and award dated 31.03.2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Reference Case No.68 of 1999 and allied matters.

3.1 Agricultural lands of the appellants situated in village Nana Bhandariya of Amreli taluka of Amreli district came to be acquired for the public purpose of the Vadi Irrigation Project. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), came to be published on 11.04.1996, whereas the declaration under section 6 of the Act came to be published in the Government Gazette on 04.07.1996.

Notices came to be issued under section 9 of the Act upon the interested parties, whereafter the Land Acquisition Officer made

C/FA/4806/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2023

an award under section 11 of the Act on 17.07.1998 in L.A.Q. No.21 of 1995 awarding compensation of Rs.1,050/- per are (Rs.10.50 per square metre) for bagayat land and Rs.700/- per are (Rs.7/- per square metre) for jirayat land. Being dissatisfied with the award, the appellants filed applications under section 18 of the Act claiming compensation at the rate of Rs.400/- per square metre. The Reference Court determined the market value of the acquired lands at Rs.20/- per square metre for Jirayat lands and Rs.30/- per square metre for Bagayat lands.

4 to 65 xxx

66. Insofar as First Appeals No.2825 to 2359 of 2012 and First Appeals No.229 of 2016 to 246 of 2016 are concerned, the notifications under section 4 of the Act have been issued on varying dates in the year 01.02.1996 to 16.06.1996. Considering the market value of the lands to be Rs.50/- per square metre in the year 1993, the appellants would be entitled to an increase of 10% per annum for three years. The market of value of the lands would thus come to Rs.50/- plus Rs.15/- = Rs.65/- per square metre for jirayat lands. For bagayat lands the market value is required to be computed at the rate of one and a half times the rate for jirayat lands. Accordingly, the market value of bagayat lands would come to Rs.75.00/- plus Rs.22.50 = Rs.97.50 per square metre.

67. The Reference Court has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per square metre for jirayat land and Rs.30/ per square metre for bagayat land. The appellants would therefore be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.45/- per square metre (Rs. 65.00-Rs. 20.00) for jirayat land and Rs.67.50 per square metre (Rs.97.50- Rs.30.00) for bagayat land."

8. Having regard to the observations and directions of the Hon'ble Division Bench, the compensation awarded to the appellant at the rate of Rs.30/- per sq. mtr., for Bagayat land and Rs.20/- per sq. mtr., for the Jirayat land by the learned Civil Court is directed to be enhanced at the rate of Rs.97.50 per sq. mtr., for Bagayat land and Rs.65/- per sq. mtr., for Jirayat land. Thus, the appellants would, therefore, be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.45/- per square metre (Rs. 65.00-Rs.

C/FA/4806/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/01/2023

20.00) for jirayat land and Rs.67.50 per square metre (Rs.97.50- Rs.30.00) for bagayat land (with increase in additional compensation at the rate of 10% per annum for eight years, as and when it is applicable). Furthermore, insofar as the period between the date of passing of the judgement and the date of filing of the present appeal, since the delay had been condoned relying upon the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K. Subbarayudu Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), reported in (2017) 12 SCC 840, more particularly upon the statement made by the learned Advocate appearing for the applicant - claimant that the applicant shall not claim interest for the period of delay, therefore, it is clarified that for the period between the date of passing of the judgement by the learned Civil Court (Reference Court) till the date of filing of the present First Appeal, shall not be counted for the purpose of interest. The respondents are accordingly directed to forthwith calculate and deposit the amount of compensation payable to the appellant in terms of the present decision with the learned Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the judgement of this Court.

9. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal stands disposed of as allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

Sd/-

(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) V.V.P. PODUVAL