HAMIDKHAN SAMSHERKHAN Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BROACH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These first appeals and cross-objections arise out of two land reference cases Nos. 4 of 1974 as well as land reference case No. 6 of 1974 on the file of the learned Assistant Judge Broach. The learned Assistant Judge awarded enhanced compensation to the concerned claimants at the rate of Rs. 500.00 per Guntha in both these references though by separate judgments. Dissatisfied by the judgment and award of the learned trial Judge in land reference case No. 4 of 1974 the claimant as well as the Referer have filed two cross appeals being first appeal No. 301 of 1975 and Appeal No. 890 of 1975 respectively While the Referer has challenged the award of the trial court in land reference case No 6 of 1974 by filing first appeal No. 568 of 1975 and the claimants of that reference have filed their cross-objections. The claimants in this group of appeals seek compensation at the rate of Rs. 30 0 per acre equivalent to Rs. 750.00 per guntha while the trial court has granted them compensation at the rate of Rs. 20 0 per acre equal to Rs. 500.00 per guntha.

(2.) In order to pin point the controversial questions involved in these appeals and the cross-objections it is necessary to note a few relevant facts. In first appeal No. 301 of 1975 with cross Appeal No. 890 of 1975 which arise out of the order of the trial court in land reference case No. 4 of 1974 the lands under acquisitions are S. Nos. 88 admeasuring 1 acre 17 gunthas and 89 admeasuring 0 acre 32 gunthas of village Kasak of Broach taluka of Broach district. These lands were situated on the outskirt of the Broach town and were within the limits of the Broach Municipality at the time of acquisition. In First Appeal No. 568 of 1975 which arises out of the order of the trial court in land reference case No. 6 of 1974 the concerned land is S. No. 86/2 admeasuring 0 acres 92 gunthas that is 2 acres 12 gunthas. The said land also was of village Kasak and was adjoining the lands with which the other land reference case was concerned. All these concerned lands which were the subject matter of the aforesaid two references before the trial court were sought to be acquired by the State of Gujarat for construction of houses of flood affected people by a notification under sec. 4 of the Act dated 20-1-1972 and which came to be published in the Govt. gazette on 3-2-1972. The said notification was followed by sec. 6 notification dated 19-5-1972 which was gazetted on 18-7-1972. Thereafter notices under sec. 9 were issued by the land acquisition officer to the concerned claimants. The concerned claimants put forward their claims for compensation before the land acquisition officer at the rate of Rs. 30 0 per acre so far as the acquired lands went. The land acquisition officer awarded compensation so far as the acquired S. No. 88 was concerned at the rate of Rs. 3.00 per sq. meter and awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 2.75 per sq. meter so far as S. No. 89 was concerned. So far as the acquired land S. No. 86/2 was concerned the land acquisition officer granted compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 2-50 per sq. meter and for trees standing on the land at Rs. 213.00. So far as the lands S. Nos. 88 and 89 were concerned they were newtenure lands in the sense that the claimants were the deemed purchasers of these lands under the provisions of sec. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 Consequently the land acquisition officer deducted one-third of the compensation payable to the claimant by way of premium charges payable to the Government. The dissatisfied claimant preferred land reference case under sec. 18 of the Act to the District Court seeking enhanced compensation for the acquired lands S. Nos. 88 and 89 and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 30 0 per acre that is at the rate of Rs. 750.00 per guntha. His reference was registered as reference No. 4 of 1974.

(3.) That takes us to the two subsidiary contentions raised by Mr. Vin in support of his first appeal No. 301 of 1975. While discussing the facts of that appeal we have pointed out that the claimant in this appeal is a deemed purchaser of agricultural lands being S. Nos. 88 and 89. As he became the deemed purchaser under sec. 32 of the Tenancy Act he had to pay purchase price as fixed by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal under sec. 32-G of the Tenancy Act. The claimant contented that he had already paid the punchas price to the original landlords. Claimant Hamidkhan Shamsherkhan Ex. 20 in his examination-in-chief stated that the proceedings for determination of value under the Tenancy Act were held and prices were fixed for purchase of these lands. The price of S. No. 88 was determined at Rs. 2200.00. That amount has been paid out of the compensation for acquisition of the said land and hence sale certificate for that land was issued to him as per Ex. 18. Similarly S. No. 89 was also purchased by him as a deemed purchaser. The price of the said land was determined at Rs. 1290.00. That amount was also paid to the owners of the land. A sale certificate was issued as per Ex. 19. Relying on these sale certificate Exs. 18 and 19 for the concerned lands as issued by the tenancy authorities under sec. 32-M of the Tenancy Act Mr. Vin submitted that there was no occasion for the learned trial Judge to once again deduct these amounts of Rs. 2200.00 and Rs. 1290.00 from the additional compensation which he granted to the claimant for being paid to the ex-landlords. They could not have been paid twice over. Mr. Vin submitted that the landlords were never demanding these amounts once again and were not contesting on this aspect. Under these circumstances submitted Mr. Vin the learned trial Judge ought not to have given a direction for deducting the aforesaid two amounts from the additional compensation granted by him to the claimant. The aforesaid submission of Mr. Vin is quite justified. Sec. 32-M certificates Exs. 18 and 19 clearly show that the concerned landlords were paid the purchase price as fixed under the Tenancy Act and now nothing remains due and payable to them by the claimant. Under these circumstances the first subsidiary submission of Mr. Vin has got to be accepted and it must be held that the learned trial Judge was not justified in deducting the amounts of Rs. 2200.00 and Rs. 1290.00 from the additional compensation which he granted to the claimants for acquisition of the concerned lands.