SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. JAYANTIBHAI CHHOTABHAI AMIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present group of First Appeals has been filed by the appellantsState under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.925 to 928 of 2006 (LAR No.927/2006 main) dated 19.12.2011 on the grounds stated in these appeals.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the lands of the original claimants situated at Village : Nandona, Taluka : Jambusar, District : Bharuch have been acquired for the construction of Nondana Branch Minor's B.W.C. Canal under Narmada Project. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were published on 18.10.2003 and 09.01.2004 respectively. Thereafter under Section 11 of the Act, award of compensation was made for Rs.338/ per ARE vide award dated 18.05.2005. Aggrieved with the said order, the original claimants made reference before the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act contending inter alia that the lands have good fertility and potentiality and the Special Land Acquisition Officer has failed to consider the relevant aspect like location, fertility, potentiality, development etc. The Reference Court on the basis of the material and evidence passed impugned award awarding additional compensation at the rate of Rs.53.38 ps. per sq.mtrs. for the acquired land, which is assailed in the present group of First Appeals.

(3.) LEARNED AGP Shri Banaji has stated that the Reference Court has failed to consider the fact that the Reference was barred under Section 18 of the Act. He submitted that the Reference Court has failed to consider the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in its true perspective. He emphasized that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation after considering the fertility, situation, prevailing market rate etc. and, therefore, the impugned award regarding enhancement of the claim is erroneous. Learned AGP Shri Banaji submitted that the Reference Court has placed much reliance on the previous award of another land and has not considered the comparative instance. He therefore submitted that the present First Appeals may be allowed.