State Of Gujarat vs Khant Nanji Rana
2023 Latest Caselaw 8273 Guj

Gujarat High Court

State Of Gujarat vs Khant Nanji Rana on 29 November, 2023

Author: Biren Vaishnav

Bench: Biren Vaishnav

                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




       C/FA/48/2009                                       ORDER DATED: 29/11/2023

                                                                                           undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 of 2009
==========================================================
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
                                     Versus
                               KHANT NANJI RANA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAYANK CHAVDA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR GM AMIN(124) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9
==========================================================
  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
        and
        HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE

                                 Date : 29/11/2023

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE)

1. This appeal is filed at the instance of the State under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and award dated 30.11.2006 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh, in Reference Case No.3 of 1999 preferred by the original claimants, came to be partly allowed thereby awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.34.10 Ps. per Sq. Mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.25.60 Ps. per Sq. Mtr. for non- irrigated land.

2. Present appeal was preferred along with application seeking condonation of delay. This Court by order dated 12.11.2008 had condoned the delay and considering the grounds raised in the appeal, the same was admitted on 31.03.2009. At the stage of admission of appeal, present appeal was heard along with group of appeals preferred by the State against the aforesaid common judgment and award passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/48/2009 ORDER DATED: 29/11/2023

undefined

Judge, in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1 of 1999, 4 of 1999 and 269 of 1999. The cognate appeals were registered as First Appeal Nos.46 of 2009, 47 of 2009 and 51 of 2009.

3. The appeal has been notified pursuant to the note placed by the Registry indicating the fact that aforesaid cognate appeals came to be dismissed by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 22.01.2020 and First Appeal No.50 of 2009 came to be disposed of as withdrawn in Lok Adalat held on 14.03.2015.

4. We have heard learned AGP Mr. Chavda for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. Amin, who has appeared on behalf of the respondents - claimants. We have also perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge as well as order dated 22.01.2020 passed by the Coordinate Bench in the cognate appeals..Learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have fairly accepted the fact that the judgment and award challenged in the present appeal is part of the common judgment and award passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge in the group of Land Reference Cases, which came to be upheld by the Coordinate Bench in its order dated 22.01.2020.

5. Upon perusal of the record, it transpires that the process of the acquisition of subject land for the purpose of Uben Irrigation Scheme was set into the motion by issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. The said Notification was published on 02.10.1980, which was followed by declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was issued on 05.12.1980. The aforesaid land acquisition proceedings culminated into the award

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/48/2009 ORDER DATED: 29/11/2023

undefined

dated 26.10.1981 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11(1) of the Act. By the said award, the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of the non irrigating land at Rs.90/- per acre, Rs.130/- per acre for irrigating land and Rs.1 per acre for Kharaba land. The land owners including the present claimants had approached the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge by presenting Reference under Section 18 of the Act. The said Land Reference Cases were registered as Land Reference Case Nos.100 of 1982, 102 of 1982 and 103 of 1982. Initially, by common judgment and award dated 30.03.1988, the learned Senior Civil Judge partly allowed the aforesaid applications by awarding the amount of Rs.20/- per Sq. Yard. The said award was challenged by the State before this Court by filing First Appeal No.1537 of 1988 and allied matters, which came to be partly allowed and the matters were remanded back by the judgment and order dated 18.12.1997 passed by this Court. Pursuant to the remand, the aforesaid cases were renumbered as Reference Case Nos.1 of 1999, 4 of 1999 and 269 of 1999. The aforesaid Reference cases were heard along with Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.2 of 1999 and 5 of 1999, which were disposed by common judgment and award dated 30.11.2006, passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh.

6. Feeling aggrieved with the enhanced amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court, the State had approached in appeal belatedly along the application seeking condonation of delay. As noticed earlier, this appeal came to be admitted along group of appeals challenging the said common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court.

                                                                              NEUTRAL CITATION




     C/FA/48/2009                            ORDER DATED: 29/11/2023

                                                                              undefined

7. Learned AGP appearing for the appellant - State was unable to dispute the aforesaid facts. Since the common question of fact and law was raised and dealt with by the Reference Court, which has been confirmed by the Coordinate Bench in its order dated 22.01.2020 in First Appeal No.46 of 2009 and allied matter, we are of the view that no different view can be taken. The relevant observations of the aforesaid order are reproduced as under:

"7.0. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and on perusal of the record and proceedings, more particularly, evidence of the claimants as well as evidence of Mr. R.K. Modhvadiya at Exh.134 who was an expert and was District Agriculture Officer, it clearly transpires that respondents original claimants have proved that extent of fertility of land and that the respondents land owners were able to yield two crops in a year. The evidence clearly spells out that in the winter season the original claimants yield the Groundnut and in the summer crop of wheat. It also appears from the evidence that extent of yield is also proved by the respondents claimants and the Reference Court has rightly applied the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1994 SC 1836 and AIR 1997 SC 1845 and has adopted the yield method based upon the evidence at Exh.114 which is a market price list of Gondal APMC. The Secretary of the said Market Committee at Exh.135 clearly reveals the market price prevailing during the relevant period. As far as evidence adduced by the State Government at Exh.146 and 147 is concerned, the same are sale deed for the land situated at village Bhatgam. On perusal of the whole record and proceedings except the deposition of Special Land Acquisition Officer, vendors are not examined by the State before the Reference Court and learned Assistant Government Pleader has not been able to show anything from the record that the contents of the sale deed are proved or even attempted to be proved in any manner. Even referring to the previous award at Exh.148, it deserves to be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/48/2009 ORDER DATED: 29/11/2023

undefined

noted that in the said case Section 4 Notification was dated 16.11.1982 which is after date of notification in the case on hand and therefore, the same cannot be considered as exemplar in the instant case. The Reference Court has therefore, rightly not relied upon the evidence at Exhs. 146 & 147 previous sale deeds as the same were not proved and Exh.148 previous award, which relates to Notification dated 16.11.1982.

8.0. We are in complete agreement with the observations made by the learned Reference Court in para 28, 29 and 30 in the impugned judgment and award. Upon reappreciation of evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and has determined the adequate compensation, which does not require any interference. The market value as determined by the Reference Court does not require any reduction as prayed for by the appellant and same is confirmed.

9.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Record and proceedings of the case be transmitted back to the learned Reference Court forthwith."

8. In view of the aforesaid observations of the Coordinate Bench in the cognate appeals and upon re-appreciation of the evidence placed on record, we are in complete agreement with the aforesaid observations. The market value as determined by the Reference Court in respect of land in question is hereby confirmed. The present appeal is hereby dismissed.

9. It is further directed that the security furnished by the original claimants at the stage of withdrawal of balance 50% of award amount in terms of oral order dated 29.10.2009 passed by this Court in Civil Application (For Stay) No.4623 of 2009 in present

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/48/2009 ORDER DATED: 29/11/2023

undefined

appeal is hereby released. Since the award amount was also permitted to be withdrawn by this Court in terms of aforesaid order dated 29.10.2009 passed by this Court, no further order for disbursement is passed.

R & P is directed to be sent back forthwith to the concerned trial Court.

(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)

(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) Y.N. VYAS