STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AHER JAGMAL LAKHMAN JODWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment and award dated 12.10.2007 rendered by the learned Sr.Civil Judge, Veraval in LAR Case Nos.6 to 11 of 2005 whereby the reference Court awarded additional amount of compensation to the respondents ? claimants @ Rs.1591/- per RA for Piyat land, and so far as LAR Case Nos.7 and 8 of 2005 are concerned, the reference Court awarded compensation at the additional rate of Rs.1966/- per RA. Furthermore, so far as the land reference case Nos.6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 were concerned, the additional amount of compensation was granted on the basis of the yield of various fruits, namely, coconut, badam, gunda etc. and along with judgment and award, two schedules came to be attached, namely, Schedule 'A' and Schedule 'B', and it transpires that so far as the land reference case Nos.6,9,10 and 11 of 2005 are concerned, the amount of compensation came to be paid only on the basis of standing fruit bearing trees and annual production thereof, and so far as LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005 are concerned, the reference Court awarded compensation to the claimants of these two land reference cases at the additional rate of Rs.1966/- per RA. THE State of Gujarat and the Executive Engineer, who were opponents in the reference cases, felt that the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants was exorbitant and on higher side and, therefore, challenged the impugned judgment and award in these appeals.

(2.) CERTAIN agricultural lands belonging to the respondents claimants situated in the outskirts of village Kukaswada, Taluka Malia Hatina, District Junagadh, detailed in paragraph 2 in the judgment and award, proposed to be acquired for the common public purpose of Canal connecting two rivers, namely, Noli and Meghal. The notification u/s.4 of the Land Acquisition Act ('the Act', for short) came to be published on dated 5.11.1998 and the notification u/s.6 of the Act was published on dated 2.2.1999. The Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry in LAQ No.33 of 1998 to determine the just and sufficient amount of compensation and declared his award u/s.11 of the Act on dated 20.04.2001 and offered compensation @ Rs.1100/- per RA for irrigated land and Rs.725/- per RA for non-irrigated land. The claimants felt that the amount offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was highly inadequate and insufficient and, therefore, they applied for references, and their references were numbered and registered as LAR Case Nos.6 to 11 of 2005 wherein they claimed compensation @ Rs.10000/- per RA.

(3.) PER contra, Mr.Vimal Patel, ld.advocate for the respondents ? original claimants supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court and stated that the reference Court has adopted correct method while determining the amount of compensation. It is submitted that the reference Court rightly arrived at the conclusion on the basis of evidence on record. That except LAR Nos.7 and 8 of 2005, in the remaining four cases, there were fruit bearing trees and for those four cases, the reference Court rightly adopted the yield method. It is submitted that qua those four reference cases, the reference Court did not grant the compensation at any fixed rate per RA or per square meter. Mr.Patel, ld.advocate drew my attention to Form 'D' attached to the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s.11 of the Act and submitted that even qua these four land reference cases, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation on the basis of the standing fruit plantations in the lands and the value of the yield, and on the same basis, in the impugned judgment and award, the reference Court awarded the compensation. However, the reference Court was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the amount awarded qua these four land reference cases by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was quite meagre and insufficient and the reference Court was perfectly justified in determining the fair and reasonable amount of compensation. Mr.Patel, ld.advocate for the respondents ? claimants, therefore, submitted that no ground is made out by the appellants to interfere with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the reference Court and all these appeals may be dismissed.