PATEL NATHABHAI RANGABHAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, original claimants whose agricultural lands came to be acquired by the respondent - Authority and Deputy Collector, Modasa, District : Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in a Land Reference No.26 of 1984, pursuant to a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) dated 7/8/1980 where awarded the market price at Rs.1.50 per sq.mtr. which upon reference at the instance under Section 18 came to be upwardly revised by the District Court, Sabarkantha, at Himmatnagar to Rs.5.50 per sq.mtr. in respect of Revenue Survey No.628 which is directly challenged at the instance of the appellants in this appeal under Section 54 of the Act.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Nadiad had sent proposal to acquire the agricultural properties bearing Survey Nos.626, 627 and 628 of village Malpur in Sabarkantha District for the purpose of the construction of 66 K.V. Sub-Station. The Deputy Collector, Modasa initiated the acquisition proceedings and public Notification under Section-4(1) of the Act on 7/8/1980 followed by under Section 6(1) dated 26/6/1981. The notice under Sections 9 (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Land Acquisition Act has been served to the concerned parties and after making hearing, the Deputy, Collector, Modasa made an award and awarded compensation in respect of acquired lands. The lands acquired are agricultural lands. There were three Land Reference Cases Nos.25, 26 and 27 of 1984 in respect of Revenue Survey Nos.627, 628 and 626. The Reference Court passed the common judgment in respect of all the three references on 19/09/1986. The appellants, who are the original brothers and who are the owners of the agricultural lands bearing Revenue Survey No.628, have challenged the award of the Reference Court by filing this appeal.

(3.) We have heard the rival submissions of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we are also taken through the evidence in course of submissions before us. We have also examined the entire record. The relevant proposition of law was also highlighted before us and after taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances and the evidence on record and the relevant legal preposition, we are also of the clear opinion that the award of the Reference Court is not only on very conservative side, but also partly unjust, unreasonable and improper requiring our interference for upwardly revision, for the purpose of just, proper and reasonable award to the claimants before us in view of the provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act.