STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KAMDABEN VINODBHAI GAMIT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of first appeals arise out of the judgment and award dtd. 16/1/2014 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vyara, District: Tapi in Land Reference Case Nos.137 of 2012 to 147 of 2012, whereby the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation of Rs.417.00 per square meter for the land acquired of village Kanpura, Taluka: Vyara, District: Tapi by the appellant-State for construction of Ukai High Level Cantor Canal, for which, notification under Sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 17 th April, 2008 and notification under Sec. 6 of the Act was published on 19/2/2009. The Land Acquisition Officer offered the compensation at Rs.2800.00 per ARE, i.e, Rs.28.00 per square meter for the acquired lands of the claimants. Being aggrieved, the claimants filed the applications, which culminated into reference proceedings. The claimants claimed compensation at Rs.1000.00 per square meter. After appreciating the oral as well as the documentary evidence and the law enunciated by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in various decisions, the Reference Court has awarded an additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.417.00 per square meter along with the statutory interest. The same has given rise to the present first appeals.

(2.) Learned AGP Mr. Jay Mehta appearing for the acquiring body has submitted that the Reference Court has fallen in error in awarding the enhanced compensation without appreciating the fact of quality of fertility of the acquired land as also the development of the area. It is submitted that the Reference Court has fallen in error in considering the sale deeds below Exh.31 for granting the additional compensation. It is submitted that the Reference Court should have ascertained that the area of the sale instances relied upon by the claimants was comprising of 97.52/- square meters in comparison to the acquired land of 23,978/- square meters. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award may be quashed and set aside.

(3.) In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval appearing for the claimants has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference since the amount of additional compensation as awarded by the Reference Court is appropriately fixed and awarded. Learned advocate Mr. Raval has submitted that, in fact, there were six sale instances, on which, the claimants have placed reliance and out of such sale instances, the lowest one at Exh.31 dtd. 22/5/2005 is only being relied upon. It is submitted that there were other sale instances which showed the higher amount of sale of the lands of the very same village, the same is not considered by the Reference Court. While placing reliance on the Division Bench decision dtd. 21/9/2011 passed in First Appeal No.1134 of 2004 and allied matters, Mr. Raval has submitted that the Reference Court has determined the additional compensation by deducting 60% of the amount from the sale instance at Exh.31. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned judgment and award does not require any interference.