CHIMANLAL KODARLAL Vs. DISTRICT DEPUTY COLLECTOR ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise from the judgment dated 3rd February 1958 delivered by the learned Civil Judge (S. D.) Nadiad in Compensation Cases Nos. 14 19 and 20 of 1956 by which the learned Judge rejected those references obtained by three different sets of claimants. First Appeal No. 194 of 1960 arises from Compensation Case No. 14 of 1956 First Appeal No. 195 of 1960 arises from Compensation Case No. 19 of 1956 and First Appeal No. 215 of 1960 arises from Compensation Case No. 20 of 1956. The lands in all these three references were notified for acquisition under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 11 March 1950. The acquisition was for and on behalf of the Associated Cement Companies Bombay In appeal No. 194 of 1960 three lands bearing survey Nos. 303 304 and 305/1 measuring 77 bighas and 14 vasas are involved. In appeal No. 195 of 1960 six lands bearing survey Nos. 317 318 319 320 320 and 321 measuring 130 bighas and 1 vasa are involved. In appeal No. 215 of 1960 lands bearing survey Nos. 315 and 316/1 measuring 26 bighas and 6 vasas are involved. All these lands are situated within the limits of a locality known as Gajapagis Muwada in the village Bhagiakinari. The lands are situated in two different lots. Survey Nos. 303 304 and 305/1 are situated in the northern extremity of the village and the locality. They border on the limits of the neighbouring village Falsani. The other lands survey Nos. 315 316 317 318 319 320 320 and 321 are situated on the southern extremity of the locality in the village and border on the neighbouring village Bodeli. The claimants in both the appeals Nos. 194 and 195 of 196 claimed compensation for the land value at the rate of Rs. 1 200 per bigha. The claimants in appeal No. 194 of 1960 in addition asked for a sum of Rs. 500/for trees and hedges and claimant in appeal No. 195 of 1960 asked for a sum of Rs. 650/under the same two heads. The land Acquisition Officer awarded to the claimants in appeal No. 194 of 1960 land value at the rate of Rs. 125/per bigha and a sum of Rs. 75/as compensation for trees. In addition he awarded solatium at the rate of 15 % and a sum of Rs. 661/by way of interest. The total claim thus awarded to the claimants in appeal No. 194 of 1960 was Rs. 1 667 as against their total claim of Rs. 1 14 75 The same officer awarded to the claimant in appeal No. 195 of 1960 land value at the rate of Rs. 85 per bigha plus Rs. 50/for hedge a sum of Rs. 177/for a hut plus solatium at 15 %. The total amount thus awarded to this claimant was Rs. 13 321 as against his total claim of Rs. 1 50 275 The claimant in appeal No. 215 of 1960 did not make any claim before the Land Acquisition Officer. The latter awarded to that claimant the same rate of Rs. 85/per bigha as was awarded to the claimant in appeal No. 195 of 1960. All the three sets of claimants were dissatisfied with the awards made by the Land Acquisition Officer. Therefore they asked for references to the District Court at Nadiad which references were given to them. The District Court transferred the cases for decision to the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Nadiad. The latter held that the claimants were unable to show that the compensation amounts were inadequate and dismissed substantially the references on merits. He awarded only two very small sums to the claimants in appeals Nos. 194 and 195 of 1960 on the ground that the Land Acquisition Officer had committed an error in giving the measurements of the lands acquired from these two sets of claimants. It is from this judgment of the learned Civil Judge that the present three appeals have been preferred.

(2.) The three sets of claimants relied upon in the Reference Court two types of evidence in support of their claims viz. income from the land under acquisition and instances of sales. The learned Judge did not place any reliance upon the evidence relating to income. He considered the instances of sales and found that those instances did not afford any assistance or guidance in the matter of the valuation of the lands under acquisition. He held that each of the sale instances was not a useful instance. In addition the claimants also relied upon an award Ex. 84 dated 27th February 195A given by a Land Acquisition Officer in respect of lands situated in the hamlet of Jamiatpura of the neighbouring village Bodeli. The learned Judge also held that this was not a useful instance. It is on these grounds that the learned Judge dismissed the claims of the three claimants.

(3.) [ His Lordships held that as the claimant in appeal No. 215 of 1960 did not make any claim to the Land Acquisition Officer the additional claim of the claimant is barred under sec. 25(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.