SANTUBHAI RANCHODBHAI PATEL Vs. SPECIAL LAQ OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are preferred under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) read with Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the common award made by the Reference Court (Second Extra Assistant Judge, Kheda at Nadiad) in Reference Case Nos. 134/86 to 141/86 dated 6.5.98 whereby the claimants were held entitled to get market price @ Rs.90.00 per sq.mtr. for the lands acquired for which notification was published under Sec. 4 of the Act in 1984.

(2.) The claimants have preferred the appeals being First Appeal No. 4125/98, 4128/98, 4263/98 to 4267/98. The beneficiary, D.D.Institute of Technology preferred appeals being First Appeal No. 6281/98 to 6288/98. The State also preferred appeals being First Appeal Nos. 2078/99 to 2085/99, however, the registration has been refused and therefore the appeals preferred by the claimants as well as the beneficiary are required to be heard. These appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment as a common award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, and the Reference Court also disposed of the same by a common award.

(3.) Notification under Sec. 4 of the Act was published on 13.9.84 for acquisition of lands situated within the municipal limits of Nadiad Municipality for D.D.Institute of Technology. After considering the documents, material evidence and hearing the claimants, ultimately award was made on 31.3.86 under Sec. 11 of the Act whereby the claimants were held entitled to Rs.20.00 to 22/- per sq.mtr. The claimants submitted Reference Applications under Sec. 18 of the Act, claiming market price @ Rs.300.00 per sq.mtr. and hence the Reference Court was required to determine the market price. On appreciation of evidence, the Reference Court awarded Rs.90.00 per sq.mtr. by judgment and order dated 6.5.98. Being aggrieved by the said order made by the Reference Court, now the claimants and beneficiary are agitating before us for determination of the correct market price by stating that the Reference Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence, has wrongly applied the principles of law and has not considered the instances in accordance with law to determine the market price. Witnesses have been examined by the claimants as well as the State and the beneficiary. An expert is also examined by the claimants who has placed on record his opinion.