STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PUNAMCHAND BHOGILAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three groups of appeals are arising from the common judgments and orders of the learned Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha in the respective Land Acquisition References No.2390 to 2434 of 1989 (the main case being Land Acquisition Reference No.2393 of 1989), LAR No.2088 to 2155 of 1989 (the main case being LAR No.2105 of 1989) and LAR No.2435 to 2482 of 1989 (the main case being LAR No.2481 of 1989). In all these cases, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`the Act' for short) being the same, i.e. 20.3.1986, and the lands under acquisition also being of the same village, namely, Village Sabli, Taluka Idar, District Sabarkantha, and at the request of learned counsel for the parties, all the appeals were heard together and on the basis of the common arguments, they are decided and disposed by this common judgment. However, First Appeals Nos.7356, 7385, 7406 and 7467 of 1999 are excluded in view of the original respondent claimants having been reported to have passed away and their legal representatives were as yet not brought on record.

(2.) It is the common ground that the original claimants, who are the respondents herein, are awarded varying amounts of compensation by the impugned judgments and such amounts of compensation for small residential plots and superstructure thereon in each case are not exceeding Rs.30,000.00 except in six individual cases.

(3.) The lands and buildings were acquired on account of the same going into submergence as a result of Guhai Jalagar Project. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs.2.00 per sq. mtr. for the land and Rs.150.00 to Rs.300.00 per sq. mtr. for the construction. Upon references being made under Section 18 of the Act, the claimants led oral and documentary evidence regarding the sale instances of nearby village of Bhadreshwar which was only 3 kms. away. Similar lands were acquired from that village by notification dated 26.3.1986 and the judgment awarding compensation @ Rs.100.00 per sq. mtr. was also produced at Ex.21. Evidence of sale instance of a small plot of land admeasuring 750 sq. ft. of the same village sold in the year 1980 for Rs.3,000.00 was also placed on record at Exhs.28 and 29. Considering such relevant evidence of the rates fixed in the cases of nearby village and making necessary adjustments in the comparable sale instances of the same village, the market value of the lands in question was fixed at Rs.38.00 per sq. mtr. As for the cost of construction of houses which were also to be submerged, the evidence led on behalf of the claimants was discarded but the award of the Land Acquisition Officer having been based on the rates of building materials fixed by the Government in 1982-83, the compensation was increased by 25% in the impugned judgments in view of the normal rise in prices 10% per annum.