GENERAL MANAGER Vs. RAMESHJI SONAJI THAKORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 20-9-2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana, in LAR Nos.3554 and 3555 of 2003, whereby the original claimants were granted compensation of Rs.3.33 per sq.mtr. from the date of taking over possession upto 31-12-1984; Rs.4.00 per sq.mtr. from 1-1-1985 to 31-12-1987; Rs.4.50 per sq.mtr. from 1-1-1988 to 31-12-1990; Rs.5 per sq.mtr. from 1-1-1991 to 31-12-1993; Rs.6.66 per sq.mtr. from 1-1-1994 to 31-12-1996; Rs.8.33 per sq.mtr from 1-1-1997 to 31-12-1999; Rs.10.00 per sq.mtr. from 1-1-2000 to 31-12-2002; Rs.12.00 per sq.mtr. from 1-1-2003 to 31-12-2004 and thereafter Rs.15.00 per sq.mtr. from 1-1-2005 onwards, against an amount of Rs.0.48 ps. per sq.mtr. originally awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under sec.35 of the Land Acquisition Act ("the Act" for short). The appellant was further directed to pay arrears of compensation with interest at the rate of Rs.12% p.a. from the date on which the amount has become due till 31-12-1999 and thereafter at the rte of 9% p.a. till the amount is realised or paid by the appellant. It was further directed that the amount of compensation fixed at Rs.15.00 per sq.mtr should be increased at 15% at every interval of three years commencing from 1-1-2005 and the said increase will be calculated on the last presiding amount. It was further observed that in the event of land not being surrendered to the original land owner, the claimants should have right after expiration of period of 20 years to move the competent court for refixation of the amount of compensation in future.

(2.) Since these appeals arise out of common judgement and award passed by the learned Reference Court and raise common questions of fact and law, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for M/s Marshall & Associates for the appellant and learned AGP, Mr.N.J.Shah, for the respondent No.2. However, no one appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1.