Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Muljibhai Gobarbhai Patel
2023 Latest Caselaw 4203 Guj

     C/FA/882/1989                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 08/06/2023




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 882 of 1989

                                  With
                     R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 299 of 2001

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

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

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 ?

==========================================================
                     SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
                                   Versus
                        MULJIBHAI GOBARBHAI PATEL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KURVEN DESAI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Defendant(s) No. 4
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MR BG PATEL(599) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4
==========================================================

    CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

                               Date : 08/06/2023

                               ORAL JUDGMENT

1.Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader

C/FA/882/1989 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/06/2023

Mr. Kurven Desai for the appellant-State.

2.By this appeal, the appellant-State has

challenged the judgment and award dated

18.01.1989 passed in Land Acquisition Case

No.92 of 1986 by the Assistant Judge,

Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar.

3.Brief facts of the case are that the

Executive Engineer, Public Health and

Building department made a proposal on

17.12.1982 to the Collector, Sabarkantha to

acquire Gamtal land for water supply to

village Simaliya for construction of the

Well.

4.Notification dated 5.01.1984 under section 4

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (For short

"the Act") was published in the Government

Gazette and section 6 notification was

published on 18.04.1985 for acquisition of

C/FA/882/1989 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/06/2023

land admeasuring 3850 sq. mtrs of village

Simaliya.

5.The respondents have constructed a Well and

one room over such Well on Government land

and therefore, did not claim any compensation

for the land but made a claim for

compensation for the construction of Well and

room thereon.

6.The Land Acquisition Officer however, did not

grant any compensation considering the fact

that the respondents constructed the Well on

the Government land which was regularised in

the year 1981 by the Collector on a condition

that if such Well is acquired for the purpose

of water supply then the respondents would

not claim any compensation towards the value

of the land. The respondents also submitted

an affidavit dated 28.09.1981 before the

Collector for regularisation of construction

C/FA/882/1989 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/06/2023

of the Well on the Government land.

7.The respondents therefore, being aggrieved by

the Nil award dated 30.01.1986 passed by the

Special Land Acquisition Officer preferred

Land Acquisition Case No. 92/1986 before the

Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar.

8.Learned Judge after considering the evidence

on record led by the respondents who claimed

that they incurred an expenditure of Rs.

50,000/- for construction of Well and were

also getting income by cultivating crop by

water procured from the Well, awarded

compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards the cost

of Well and Rs. 7,500/- for cost of pipelines

i.e. total Rs. 32,500/- and interest at the

rate of 9% from 1.1.1980 to 31.12.1980 and

15% from 1.1.1981 on the amount of

compensation.

C/FA/882/1989 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/06/2023

9.Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.

Kurven Desai submitted that the learned Judge

has committed an error in awarding

compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of

construction of Well in absence of any

evidence of expenditure incurred by the

respondents.

10. It was further submitted that no

evidence was led by the respondents for

incurring cost for pipeline claimed at Rs.

10,000/-.

11. It was submitted that the Special Land

Acquisition Officer has rightly not awarded

any compensation as the respondents

constructed Well over the Government land and

considering the value of the land which was

used for construction of the Well by the

respondents and giving set-off against cost

of construction of the Well as well as cost

C/FA/882/1989 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/06/2023

for pipeline, Special Land Acquisition

Officer has rightly not granted any

compensation for acquiring the land

admeasuring 3850 sq. mtrs which was required

for the purpose of construction of Well for

providing water supply to village Simaliya.

12. It was further submitted that the

Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed a

detailed order taking into consideration the

fact of encroachment made by the respondents

over the Government land for construction of

Well and the fact of conditional

regularisation of such Well and thereafter

arrived at just conclusion to the effect that

the respondents were not entitled to any

compensation for the land which is acquired

pursuant to the notifications issued under

sections 4 and 6 of the Act.

13. It was further submitted that the Land

C/FA/882/1989 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/06/2023

Acquisition Officer has observed in the Nil

award that only difference between the value

of land which was irrigated by the Well

constructed by the respondents and land which

is not irrigated is required to be paid. It

was submitted that Block nos. 17, 164, 155

and 74 were belonging to other persons which

were not irrigated whereas block nos.147 and

149 were only irrigated and therefore, there

was no difference between the value of

irrigated land and non irrigated land so as

to grant any compensation to the respondents.

14. Learned advocate Mr. B. G. Patel who

appears for respondent nos.1 and 3.5 is not

present. The respondents have also filed

Cross Objection No. 299/2001 claiming

compensation for cost of pipeline of Rs.

10,000/- in view of valuation report produced

at Exhs. 31 and 32.

C/FA/882/1989 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/06/2023

15. Having heard learned Assistant

Government Pleader Mr. Kurven Desai and on

perusal of the Nil award passed by Land

Acquisition Officer as well as the impugned

judgment and award passed in Land

Acquisition Case No.92 of 1986, it appears

that the learned Judge has after taking into

consideration oral and documentary evidence

on record including the valuation report at

Exhs.31 and 32 and the deposition of the

plaintiffs has arrived at just and proper

conclusion that the respondents are entitled

to compensation of Rs. 32,500/- towards cost

of construction of Well as well as cost of

pipeline and no interference is called for.

16. The contention raised on behalf of the

learned AGP Mr. Desai relying upon the Nil

award passed by the Special Land Acquisition

Officer that respondents are only entitled to

compensation for difference between value of

C/FA/882/1989 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/06/2023

irrigated land and non irrigated land has

rightly been not accepted by the learned

Judge as there is nothing on record to show

that the respondents were entitled to

compensation only with regard to difference

between the value of irrigated and non

irrigated land and undertaking filed by the

respondents/claimants before the Collector

for regularization of the Well constructed

over the Government land in the year 1981

does not refer to such condition. The

respondents have only declared before the

Collector that they will not claim any

compensation towards the value of land,

however, such undertaking is misinterpreted

by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and

therefore, learned Judge has rightly awarded

just compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards

cost of construction of Well and Rs, 7,500/-

for cost of pipeline and therefore, the

impugned award is upheld and the appeal

C/FA/882/1989 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/06/2023

stands dismissed.

17. With regard to the Cross Objection filed

on behalf of the respondent, it is pertinent

to note that as against the claim of Rs.

10,000/- towards cost of pipeline incurred by

the respondents, in absence of any evidence,

learned Judge has awarded just compensation

of Rs.7500/- which requires no interference

and accordingly, Cross Objection is also

dismissed.

(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) RAGHUNATH R NAIR