MOHANBHAI RAICHANDDAS PATEL Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS-claimants are in appeal against the judgment and award dated 24.10.2000 passed by Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference No.236 of 1996. The facts which are noticed from the record of the case are as under:-

(2.) LANDS of the present appellants-claimants situated at village Siddhpur came to be acquired for the construction of Staff Quarters of Indian Oil Corporation. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (for short, 'the Act') was published on 5.5.1987 and notification under Section 6 of the Act came to be published on 10.8.1987. Possession of the land was taken on 17.9.1987 by applying urgency clause. The Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 30.4.1988, awarding Rs.22/- per Sq. Mtr. for the land adjacent to the Highway and Rs.18/- per Sq. Mtr. for the land which is situated away from Highway. Aggrieved by the above-said award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants-claimants requested the Land Acquisition Officer to raise reference under Section 18 of the Act. Before the Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants-claimants had already claimed Rs.100/- per Sq. Mtr. 2.1. Before the Reference Court, on behalf of claimants, one Ambaram Shivram Patel, appellant No.3 herein, was examined at Exh.16. In his deposition, the said witness has stated that the lands acquired were touching Ahmedabad- Delhi Highway and the same were irrigated land, they were taking three crops a year, there are about 10 to 12 banks in the village, the land is within the limits of Siddhpur Municipality, there are colleges, high schools, GIDC as also factories of Isabgul and all facilities at taluka level were available. This witness also produced on record copy of one judgment at Exh.15, which was in respect of adjacent village Rajpur, land of which was acquired for Kandla Bhatinda Pipeline. It is stated by the said witness that vide the said judgment, Rs.70/- per Sq. Mtr. Was awarded by the Reference Court. In his cross-examination, said witness has reiterated that the banks, colleges and other offices were situated within the limits of village and he has further stated that the market price of the land would be Rs.100/- per Sq. Mtr., as claimed by the claimants before the Reference Court. Claimants have also placed on record the extract of 7/12 form to establish three crops being taken a year from the acquired lands and also to establish that the lands were having irrigation facilities. Learned Reference Court, however, came to the conclusion that the claimants have not relied on any sale instance, claimants have also not relied on any evidence in respect to the yield and there is no supporting document produced by the claimants. Learned Reference Court has, then recorded that the only instance relied on by the claimants is of previous judgment in respect of the lands of village Rajpur, which, in view of the learned Judge, cannot be said to be a comparable instance for the purpose of assessing the market value of the land of the claimants. Learned Judge has come to the conclusion that considering the situation of the land of the claimants, there is lack of complete evidence so as to compare with the instance of the land for which there was previous judgment by the Reference Court, therefore, discarding the previous judgment on which reliance was placed, learned Judge came to the conclusion that there was no other evidence produced by the claimants and since the claimants have not come out with any positive evidence even to decide on the basis of annual yield of the lands, the claimants cannot be said to have proved their claim for additional amount of compensation for the acquired land. Appreciating the evidence of the claimants, learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the judgment upon which reliance is placed pertained to the lands of village Rajpur and the claimants being unaware of even the situation of village Rajpur and since there is no comparison, which can be made of the land of the claimants to the land of village Rajpur, learned Judge came to the conclusion that the claimants were not entitled to any additional compensation and confirmed the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer and ultimately dismissed the reference in toto by the impugned judgment and award.

(3.) LEARNED Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Moxa Thakkar appearing for the State while adopting the arguments of learned advocate Mr. Dipen Shah, has submitted that since the appellants-claimants have failed to produce on record any comparable instance so as to assess the value of the land of the claimants. She submitted that the claimants have failed to produced on record any evidence in respect of potentiality of the land and the learned Judge has, therefore, rightly come to conclusion that there was no evidence on the side of the appellants-claimants to decide the compensation on the basis of yield method. She also submitted that the previous judgment was in the case of Rajpur village, which was far away from the land of village of the appellants and since there was no other instance for comparison of the value of the land of the appellants produced by the appellants-claimants, the learned Reference Court has rightly confirmed the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer.