SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. PARSOTTAMBHAI NARSIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeals have been filed by the Appellant State under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court [Civil Judge (SD), Bharuch] in Land Reference Case Nos. 1194 of 2001 to 1206 of 2001 [ Main Land Reference Case No. 1194 of 2001].

(2.) HEARD learned AGP Mr. Ronak Raval for the Appellant and learned Advocate Mr. K.M.Sheth for the Respondents Original Claimants.

(3.) LEARNED AGP Mr. Ronak Raval made the submission that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the material and evidence on record. He submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the Land Acquisition Officer has made the award after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects. LEARNED AGP Mr. Raval has submitted that when comparable sale instances of near vicinity are available on record, it was required to be taken into consideration. LEARNED AGP Mr. Raval submitted that the Reference Court has erred in not relying upon the previous award. He submitted that the Court below ought to have ascertained whether the previous award attained finality or not. He submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the claimants have to prove their claims and discharge the burden of proof. He submitted that the Court below has erred in placing reliance on the previous award instead of placing reliance on the sale instances of the land in near vicinity and it ought to have considered 5 years sale instances of the nearby area to arrive at the market value of the land in question. LEARNED AGP Mr. Raval therefore submitted that the impugned judgment and award is erroneous and requires to be quashed and set aside and / or modified.