DIST DY COLLECTOR ANAND Vs. PATEL PUNJABHAI MATHURBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two cross appeals from the judgment and order dated 19th December 1957 delivered and passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad in Compensation Case No. 21 of 1956 Appeal No. 157 of 1960 is by the District Deputy Collector Anand who acted as the Land Acquisition Officer in the proceedings. Appeal No. 167 of 1960 is by the claimant Patel Punjabhai Mathurbhai. The land under acquisition is survey No. 1496/A situated within the limits of the township of Anand. The land measures I acre and 30 gunthas. There is no dispute that in 1949 this land was requisitioned by the Government for the State Transport Corporation to enable them to establish a workshop and a garage there and that in fact a workshop and a garage were constructed there and were in existence at the date of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. That notification was issued on 21 February 1952. The claimant Punjabhai claimed compensation under two heads before the Land Acquisition officer. He claimed compensation for the land at the rate of Rs. 3 0 per guntha and for the superstructures he claimed a compensation of Rs. 50 0 The case of the Land Acquisition Officer was that the superstructures belonged to the State Transport Corporation and the claimant had no right title and interest therein and consequently he was not entitled to receive any compensation in respect thereof. The Land Acquisition Officer valued the land at the rate of Rs. 140.00per guntha and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 9 800 for the land value. He also awarded a solatium of Rs. 1 470 for the land He further awarded a sum of Rs. 1 764 as interest on the amount of compensation for the delay in payment of the amount between the date of the taking of possession of land and the date of the award. The total compensation which the Land Acquisition Officer thus awarded to the claimant was Rs. 13 34 inclusive of the solatium and the interest. The Land Acquisition Officer rejected the claim for compensation for the structures on the ground that the claimant had no interest therein. The claimant was dissatisfied by this award and asked for a reference to the District Court of Kaira at Nadiad under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The reference was made and ultimately it came to be transferred for disposal to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nadiad. Before the learned Judge the claimant pressed his claim on both the above grounds. He repeated his claim for compensation for land at the rate of Rs. 3 0 guntha and for the structures he claimed a sum of Rs. 50 0 The learned Judge rejected the claimants claim for the superstructure but he valued the land at the rate of Rs. 800.00per guntha and on that basis he awarded to the claimant an additional sum of Rs. 46 200 plus solatium at 15% and interest thereon on both the amounts from the date of the taking of possession of the land to the date of payment. Both the sides felt aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Civil Judge and preferred the appeals as already stated. In appeal No. 157 of 1960 the Land Acquisition Officer contends that he was right in making an offer of Rs. 140/per guntha. That appeal is directed against the additional claim awarded by the learned Civil Judge. In the cross appeal No. 167 of 1960 the claimant repeats his claims for land value at the rate of Rs. 3 0 per guntha and a compensation of Rs. 50 0 for the superstructure. Adding the solatium of 15% on the additional claim made by him in appeal the claimant claims a further sum of Rs. 2 34 600 in the cross appeal.

(2.) The claimant relied upon four types of documentary evidence in the main and oral evidence in support of his claim. He relied upon six instances of sales. In addition he relied upon two awards of two different pieces of lands. He led oral evidence in support of these awards. In addition to this he also relied upon two judgments in connection with two Land Acquisition cases. One of them is embodied in Ex. 53 which is a certified copy of the judgment of an Assistant Judge in respect of a land which was notified for acquisition on 11th December 1947 in which the learned Assistant Judge had given to the claimant therein a rate of Rs. 175.00per guntha. He also relied upon Ex. 55 which is a copy of the judgment delivered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kaira in which he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/per guntha in respect of the acquisition of survey Nos. 1496/B and C the notification under section 4 in respect of which was issued on 10th December 1949. It appears that an appeal was preferred from this judgment to the High Court of Bombay. The judgment delivered by the High Court in this appeal has be en brought on the record of this appeal by the claimant. By that judgment the compensation was increased to Rs. 600/per guntha in respect of survey No. 1496/B and to Rs. 550/per guntha in respect of survey No. 1496/C. The claimant also relied upon certain other documents in support of his claim for compensation. He relied upon an application for non-agricultural use of survey No. 1496/B which he had made to the Collector of Kaira. He also placed reliance upon Ex. 48 dated 17th August 1951 which was an agreement for sale of survey No. 1196/B which gave him a rate of about Rs. 3 0 per guntha.

(3.) The learned Civil Judge in the main relied upon two instances of sales. One instance is embodied in Ex. 73 dated 17th December 1948 and the other is embodied in Ex. 76 dated 2nd January 1951. The learned Judge did not rely upon the other instances of sales nor does he seem to have placed reliance upon the awards. But the learned Judge did place reliance upon the two judgments Exs. 53 and 55. It was the case of the claimant that since 1948 and 1949 there was a tendency for land values to increase in the locality in which survey No. 1496/A is situated. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence justified the view that the price of land at Anand was on the increase. As already stated mainly placing reliance upon Exs. 73 76 53 and 55 the learned Judge came. to the conclusions which we have already mentioned above.