STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ARASI NATHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS all the appeals arise from the common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, they are being considered by this common judgment.

(2.) ALL the appeals arise against a common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 28.06.2006 in Land Reference Case Nos.67/1999 to 96/1999 whereby the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at Rs.594/Are for irrigated land, Rs.485/Are for non-irrigated land and Rs.549/Are for waste land. Additionally, the Reference Court has also awarded increase in the market value under Section 23(1A), solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').

(3.) AS such from the above referred decision of this Court, it appears that the decision, upon which reliance has been placed by the Reference Court of the other notification may not assume much importance and on the contrary when the decision is available for the acquisition of the land at the very village and that too for the very project and it was also produced before the Reference Court at Exh.205, in our view, the same would be one of the important aspects which may be required for the consideration of the assessment of the market value prevailing at the time when notification under section 4 of the Act was published. We may record that in the decision of this Court, the court recorded the reasons at Paragraph No.5, which reads as under: 5. The appellants have in-all examined 9 witnesses. Some of them are Government employees, whereas the others are the persons whose lands have already been sold and they have been examined with a view to have the sale-deeds on record. The appellants' witness, namely Prabhudas Jivrajbhai, whose evidence is recorded at Exh.104, clearly supports the version given by the respondents. He has stated that in village Amrapur in the year 1981 the market price of the irrigated land was Rs.10,000/- per Vigha and that of Jirayat land was Rs.7,000/- per Vigha. He has also admitted the fact that prices that have been stated by him were after deduction of salvage value of the property. He has also stated that every year there is increase of 10 to 15% in the prices of the land. In view of this evidence of Prabhudas Jivrajbhai as also the evidence of different applicants i.e present respondents, it appears that the market value determined by the Reference Court is just and proper. AS per the Government witnesses themselves, the price of irrigated land of village Amrapur was around Rs.10,000/- per Vigha. The Reference Court also placed heavy reliance on this evidence and determined the market value at Rs.62,500/- per hectare. Since the acquisition was quite old, the Reference Court kept in view the relevant aspects and even thereby it came to the conclusion that the just price could be Rs.10,000/- per Vigha or Rs.62,500/- per hectare. I have also re-appreciated the evidence of these witnesses and in particular that of Prabhudas Jivrajbhai. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence. It may also be noted here that the appellants have examined certain witnesses, namely, Kasam Jamal at Exh. 124, Bhana Naran at Exh. 126, Naran Anand at Exh. 128 and Ajabhai Devabhai at Exh. 134 with a view to bring the sale instances on record. These are the persons who have either sold or purchased the land. However, there is another set of documentary evidence also produced by the present respondents and the prices reflected therein of the land of Amrapur around the time of acquisition are also supported by the Government witnesses and in particular Prabhudas Jivrajbhai. Though the learned Judge has made observation that Prabhudas Jivrajbhai is rather helping the respondents instead of appellants i.e. Government, I do not find anything on record to show that he deliberately did it. Merely because confirmation can be had about the prices which are reflected from the documents produced by the respondents, it cannot be said that he was out to help the respondents. On the contrary, it appears that his testimony stands corroborated by documentary evidence. So far the compensation awarded by the Reference Court with regard to structures, crops, trees, etc., standing on the land in question is concerned, it is not very seriously challenged by the appellants nor do I find any substance in the submissions that have been advanced on behalf of the appellants. In my opinion, the award made by the Reference Court is just and proper and it does not call for any interference by this Court. These appeals, therefore, do not have any merit and they are dismissed with no order as to costs.