STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ISHWARBHAI KESHABHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present first appeals have been filed by the appellants -State being aggrieved with the judgment and award rendered in Land Reference Case Nos. 311 to 322 of 2004 (Main Land Reference Case No. 311/2004) by the learned 3rd Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Himatnagar dated 31.12.2010 on the grounds stated in the memo of appeals, inter alia, that the Reference Court has erred in appreciating the material and evidence on record. It is contended that no evidence was adduced to establish that the claimants had been cultivating the land for all the three seasons. It is also contended that the Reference Court has erred in appreciating the evidence of Vinodbhai Patel at exh. 16 that the village is developed and the land was having the yield in all the three seasons. It is therefore contended that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate that the claimants have not produced any evidence regarding the income or yield and therefore merely relying on the previous award the Reference Court could not have enhanced the compensation and therefore the appeals may be allowed.

(2.) HEARD learned AGP Mr. Banaji for the appellants. He has referred to the papers including the material and evidence and also the impugned judgment. Learned AGP Mr. Banaji has referred to page 12 of the judgment which is referring to the previous award in Main Land Acquisition Case No. 12/94 in respect of the land of village Pural, Taluka Himatnagar. He has submitted that the land in question is of village Sakrodiya and it is just 2 Kms. away. He submitted that following the previous award in Land Acquisition Case No. 12/84, the Reference Court has proceeded to decide adding 10% per year from 1992 to 2001 which is erroneous. He submitted that, as could be seen from the material and evidence, there is no potential development and it is not a developed area or in vicinity of any urban area with potential for development. He therefore submitted that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of of General Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and anr., 2008 14 SCC 745, instead of 10%, 7.5% per year ought to have been added and to that extent the impugned judgment and award is erroneous.

(3.) THOUGH served, no one has remained present for the respondents -claimants.