GENERAL MANAGER Vs. CHAUDHARI VAHJIBHAI JETHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, ONGC, has sought to challenge common judgment and order dated 18/07/2012 passed by learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.253 of 2011 to 254 of 2011. Since the appeals were sought to be argued only on the issue of quantum of compensation and the rate at which market value of the land in question was assessed and no question of fact was involved, the appeals were heard for final disposal at the admission stage.

(2.) THERE is no dispute about the facts that the lands in question were acquired by the appellant for its project out of the lands situated at Village Kukas, Taluka & District Mehsana and the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.40/ per square meter. Upon the references being made under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.2,000/ per square meter on several grounds and relied upon the award made in respect of lands acquired in the adjoining village of Lakhavad. In that case of land acquisition which was finally settled by Division Bench of this Court vide decision dated 08/12/2010 in First Appeal No.872 of 2010, the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 03/07/2004 and the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was at the rate of Rs.8.80 per square meter, against which this Court awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.400/ per square mtrs. In the present case, the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.40/ per square meter, while the relevant notification under Section 4 of the Act was dated 13/12/2005. After elaborate reference to the evidence and contentions of the parties, the Reference Court has, by the impugned judgment, awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.417/ per square meter.

(3.) THE question raised in these appeals is no more res integra in view of decision of this Court rendered in First Appeal No.3555 of 2012 and allied matters on 10/12/2012, wherein this Court in paragraph Nos.4 and 5 has held as under: