STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. THAKOR RAYAJI KHODAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these appeals arise out of a common judgment and award rendered by the Ld. 9th Addl. District Judge, Mehsana [for short 'the Reference Court'], on 09/5/2008 in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1433/2005 to 1443/2005 [main L.A.R. No. 1437/2005], whereby the Reference Court awarded compensation to the respondents claimants @ Rs.35/- per sq.mtr. The appellants who were original opponents felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation by the Reference Court is highly excessive and exorbitant and, therefore, they preferred these appeals.

(2.) CERTAIN agricultural lands situated in the outskirts of village Matrasan, Taluka Chanasma, District Mehsana proposed to be acquired for the common public purpose of Sardar Sarovar Canal in Land Acquisition Case No. 30/1994. The notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act [for short 'the Act'] was published on 19/10/1994 and the notification under section 6 of the Act was published on 13/5/1995. The Special Land Acquisition Officer conducted inquiry in Land Acquisition Case No. 30/1994 to determine the fair and reasonable amount of compensation and offered the compensation @ Rs.2-80 ps. Per sq.mtr., to the claimants. The claimants felt that the amount offered by way of compensation to them was grossly inadequate and, therefore, they applied for references and claimed compensation @ Rs.50/- per sq.mtr. Their references were numbered and registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1433 to 1443 of 2005.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. AV Prajapati, Ld. Advocate for the respondents claimants, during the course of his submissions, fully supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court. It is submitted that regarding the issue of limitation, in the impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court, has elaborately and in detail, appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and also considered the evidence of the Special Land Acquisition Officer Mr. Solanki as well as the relevant documents produced by the opponent State itself and ultimately came to the conclusion that the opponent failed to prove that the land reference cases were time barred and as a result of his discussion, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that all the references were presented within the prescribed period of limitation. 5.1. Mr. Prajapati, Ld. Advocate submitted that perusing the impugned judgment and award, it is true that the Reference Court relied upon previous award passed in connection with acquisition of lands situated at village Modhera. It is submitted that as a matter of fact, there is ample evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the lands of village Modhera acquired earlier were almost identical in potentiality and fertility like the lands of the claimants acquired in the instant case. But during the course of hearing, Mr. Prajapati supplied copy of common judgment and order rendered by this Court in the case of the Special Land Acquisition Officer & ors. v/s. Sindhi Jinnatbai Umarmiya on 25/8/2008 in First Appeal Nos. 355 of 2008 to 365 of 2008 and submitted that the subject matter of the said appeals was determination of just and fair amount of compensation pertaining to the acquisition of certain lands of village Matrasan itself. It is submitted that previously for the identical public purpose, certain agricultural lands of village Matrasan came to be acquired and in that matter, notification under section 4 of the Act was published on 13/12/1994 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants in that case @ Rs.2-80 ps. PER sq.mtr. Those claimants applied for references and their reference cases were numbered and registered as L.A.R. Cases Nos. 3723 to 3732 of 2003 and the Reference Court vide common judgment and award dated 22/9/2005 awarded compensation to those claimants @ Rs.50/- per sq.mtr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer and the State in that case, felt that the amount awarded by way of compensation by the Reference Court was highly excessive and exorbitant and, therefore, they preferred First Appeal Nos. 355 to 365 of 2008 and this Court vide common judgment and order dated 25/8/2008 partly allowed those appeals and awarded additional amount of compensation to the claimants @ Rs.35-20 ps. PER sq.mtr. Mr. Prajapati, ld. Advocate for the respondents claimants, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.35/- per sq.mtr., by way of compensation and, therefore, there is no reason whatsoever for this Court to interfere with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court. It is, therefore, submitted that the appeals may be dismissed.