DEPUTY COLLECTOR Vs. GUNVANTRAI RAJARAM DAVE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and award dated 21.04.1984 passed by learned Assistant Judge, Sakbarkantha at Himatnagar in Land Acquisition Case No.10 of 1982.

(2.) FIRST Appeal No.1054 of 1984 is filed by Deputy Collector, Himatnagar challenging the aforesaid judgment and award and the original claimant has filed FIRST Appeal No.1489 of 1984 for enhancement of the compensation granted by the Reference Court. As both these appeals raise identical questions of law and facts, the appeals are disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their original status in the lower court.

(3.) MS.Thakkar has taken us through the impugned judgment and award and has contended that the Reference Court has committed an error in determining the market value at Rs.8/sq.ft. It was further submitted that the Reference Court has though considered the sale instances Exh.43 and Exh.53 as basis to determine the market value, has failed to consider the nature of the land acquired and has in fact passed the impugned judgment and award on a single instance even though other cogent evidence in form of opinion of the Chief Town Planner was available on record. It was further submitted that even if the said sale deed Exh.53 is considered to be a comparable instance by the Reference Court, the Reference Court ought to have given at least 50% deduction instead of 20% as the land, which is acquired was of inferior quality and of a triangular shape and uneven. It was submitted that it is clear from the evidence that the land under acquisition was uneven and was required to be filled up as the land was of lower level to the extent of 3 ft. from the road level. It was, therefore, submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in straightway determining the market value at Rs.8/sq. ft. It was further submitted that the appeal filed by the original claimant is devoid of merits. It was reiterated that in fact the Reference Court has fixed the excess amount, as aforesaid, and, therefore, the appeal filed by the original claimant deserves to be dismissed. It was submitted that the attempt on the part of the claimant to compare it with the other instances on record would not carry the case any further. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeal filed by the Deputy Collector deserves to be accepted and the judgment and award of the Reference Court deserves to be set aside, confirming the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.