DILIPBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these First Appeals are filed being aggrieved of the common judgement and award dated 7th February, 1989 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.478 of 1986 to 489 of 1986 by the learned Assistant Judge, Bharuch, whereby compensation at the rate of Rs.660=00 per Are was awarded in place of Rs.120=00 per Are awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, along with 12% interest on the market value of the land for the period from the date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of the award of the Collector or till the date of taking over possession, whichever is earlier. The learned Judge was pleased to hold that the claimant is entitled to 30% solatium on the market value and is also entitled to recover interest 9% per annum for the first year from the date of taking over possession and for the subsequent year, till the date of payment with running interest @ 15% per annum.

(2.) The facts of the case in nutshell are that the lands of the appellants situated within the revenue limits of Village Haldarva, Taluka and District : Bharuch, were acquired for the purpose of construction of canal in Ankleshwar Division for Narmada Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published in the Government Gazette on 27/09/1983 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 3/3/1984.

(3.) Mr.H.B.Shah, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, original claimants, contended that the learned Judge, while considering the case of the claimants, under which they had claimed compensation Rs.50,000=00 per Acre and in some cases, Rs.60,000=00 per Acre, has failed to consider the sale instances, which were very relevant, being of the lands similar to that of the lands under acquisition and also of the period, very close to the period during which the lands under acquisition were acquired. He submitted that the learned Judge, while placing reliance on Exh.12, `award' dated 24/02/1981, whereby compensation at the rate of Rs.450=00 per Are was granted, was right. He was also right in considering 30% rise so as to reach the market value of Rs.585=00 (Rs.450=00 + 30% i.e.Rs.135=00 = Rs.585=00) on the date of the notification under Section 4, in this case, that is, 2 7/09/1983. He further submitted that the learned Judge was also right, but not fully, when he awarded only 25% rise to come to the figure of Rs.731=00 (Rs.585=00 + 25% i.e.Rs.146=00 = Rs.731=00) taking into consideration the potentiality of the land for non-agricultural use . He submitted that the rise of 25% given by the learned Judge is on lower side, but then, he submitted that as there was no material which could have been taken into consideration by the learned Judge to grant more than the rise granted by the learned Judge. He submitted that the learned Judge committed an error in deducting 10% to reach the real market value of Rs.658=00 (Rs.731=00 - 10% i.e. Rs.73=00 = Rs.658=00, Rounded Off = Rs.660=00) on the ground of largeness of area under acquisition, after having granted rise of 30% on account of time lag and 25% on account of potentiality of the land for non-agricultural use. He submitted that the learned Judge has lost sight of the fact that while considering the aspect of largeness of area under acquisition, he ought to have taken into consideration the area of the land of each holder. He submitted that as is on the record, lands were acquired for construction of canal of Ankleshwar Division. He submitted that a judicial notice can be taken of the fact that very large area of lands was acquired, but then when it comes to consider the aspect of largeness of the land under acquisition by the Court, it has to take into consideration the holding of each owner. He submitted that in the present case, the details of area under acquisition of each holder are set out in the Land Reference Cases, which are produced by the learned Judge in paragraph 3 of the judgement. He submitted that from the perusal of the schedule incorporated in the judgement, area under acquisition has varied from 607 sq.mtrs. to 12444 sq.mtrs. He submitted that out of 12 Cases, only in two cases, the area under acquisition was in five digits while in all other cases, it was in four figures. He submitted that if the learned Judge had taken this aspect into consideration, he would not have misguided himself and would not have deducted 10% amount on the ground that total lands under acquisition were admeasuring 7 hectares. He vehemently submitted that the deduction on that ground is not only unwarranted, but is also untenable in law because such deduction is not permissible under law on this ground and hence, it is not just and proper. Mr.Shah relied upon a judgement dated 23/12/1998 of the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Mr.Justice J.M. Panchal and Mr.Justice M.H.Kadri) in the matter of Officer on Spl. Duty (Land Acquisition) vs. Bai Khadija D/o Mohmed Davji Through heirs, in First Appeal Nos.170 to 193 of 1990 and First Appeal Nos.2527 to 2551 of 1992. Mr.Shah relied upon the observations made by the Division Bench in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the said judgement, which read as under :