DY COLLECTOR Vs. RATHOD CHATURSINH PRATAPSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Mr. Prajapati learned counsel appears for original claimants-respondents in all the matters and he states that he has filed his appearance in all the matters, but somehow, his name is not shown. Learned counsels appearing for both the sides agree for final disposal.

(2.) ALL the appeals arise against the common judgment and award dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Cases Nos. 163/2006 to 167/2006 & 356/2006, whereby, the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at Rs. 193/- per square meter, plus the increase in the market value, solatium and the interest as per the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

(3.) THE perusal of the reasons recorded by the reference Court shows that the Reference Court has relied upon the document of award at Exh. 22 for acquisition of the land at Prantij for the purpose of Gujarat State Petronet Ltd., Gandhinagar. THE perusal of the said award at Ex. 22, shows that the said award has been passed by the competent authority under the relevant Act and as per the said award, compensation has been fixed at Rs. 260/- per square meter. It is an admitted position that the boundary of village Anodiya is touching to the boundary of Prantij and the said aspect is also apparent from the map, which was part of the record before the Reference Court at Ex. 23. THErefore, it appears to us that the Reference Court was justified in relying upon the aforesaid award passed by the competent authority for acquisition of the land at village Prantij, more particularly, when the boundaries of village Anodiya was touching to village Prantij.