K S JORAVARSINHJI GODJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners seek to challenge the decision of the Gujarat Revenue Tribunel dated 24th June, 1988 in Appeal No. TEN.A.K.16/84 in so far as it disallows the claims of the petitioners.

(2.) Admittedly, the petitioners are inamdars, who by "Sanad" dated 27th March, 1948 were granted the villages of Chhasra and Mokha, The inam came to be a bolished by the provisions of the Bombay Inams (Kutch Area) Abolition Act, 1958 ( hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), The petitioners filed seperate applications under Sec. 13 of the Act on 30th March, 1967 in the prescribed form claiming compensation of Rs. 2,76,020.95 for each of them under various heads. The Special Mamaltdar awarded a sum of Rs. 43,600. 14ps for agricultural land in which cultivators had 'butadars' and a sum of Rs. 48.75ps as market value of trees. No compensation was awarded for cultivable waste lands and village site lands. It appears that thereafter the tribunal had remanded the matter on 4.11.1982 as adequate opportunity of hearing was not given to the claimants. The Mamaltdar thereafter made an order dated 23rd April, 1984, by which, he virtually repeated the earlier award. The petitioners preferred an appeal before the tribunal and the tribunal partly allowing the appeal, awarded compensation equal to three times the assessment granted for cultivable and uncultivated waste lands under Sec. 13 (1) (iii) instead of one time assessment and raised the sum of Rs. 554.44ps awarded by the mamaltdar to Rs. l,963.33ps. The Tribunal further ordered that the compensation for 300 acres of "Gauchar" lands at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per acre be paid after proper verification. The compensation for 126 trees was awarded at the rate Rs. 50/ and the sum of Rs. 48.75 was raised to Rs. 6,300/. Compensation for plots No. 1 and 2 at Village Mokha and plot No. 1 at Village Chhasra, over which the public had rights, was ordered to be paid at the rate of Rs. 1.50 per acre. No compensation was paid for other plots. Solatium was awarded at the rate of 15% on the market value of trees and on no other item. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum under the amended provisions of Sec. 23 (1A) of the Land Acquisition Act which was claimed was not allowed. The enhanced rate of solatium at 30% under the amended provisions of Sec. 23 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act and interest at the rate of 9% under Sec. 34 of he Act were ordered not 10 be paid till the decision of the Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court was rendered as envisaged in the decision of the Supreme Court, in Munnalal Shivdin Jaiswal vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1986 SC p. 1896. It was provided that the Deputy Collector shall pass the supplementary award on merits if necessary after the decision was rendered. Thus, the qucs ion of additional interest on solatium was left to the mamlatdar who would make a secondary award after the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a matter not connected with these proceedings which involve similar questions, was rendered.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the petitioners were entitled to get compensation at market value in respect of the unbuilt village site lands which would include buildings, plots and open sites. He submitted that the tribunal had ignored the material evidence on record which had a bearing on the nature of the plots in respect of which the compensation was claimed on the ground that they were unbuilt village site lands. It appears that the tribunal has simply looked at a survey map of DILR for rejecting the claim of the petitioners in respect of village site plots. Once the land was granted by the Ex-ruler by way of inam it was for the inamdars to fix the village site and the correct position may not emerge from the survey map of DILR. The inamdars did lead the evidence to show that certain plots were village site plots and they examined Sardarsinh Prabhatsinh Jadeja, who had stated in his deposition that the plot Nos. 1 to 34 were situated in the village site and were used for residential purposes. He had referred 10 the fact that it was within the powers of the inamdars to enlarge the village site. The tribunal has totally ignored the important evidence of Sardarsinh Jadeja which had a direct bearing on the question as to whether the lands referred to by the petitioners were village site lands or not. It will be for the tribunal to examine this question in details and ascertain as to whether any of the lands claimed by the petitioners were unbuilt village site lands, which vested in the State Government under the provision of Sec. 10 of the act. For unbuilt village site lands, there is no provision made in 13 of the Act and therefore in view of the provisions of Sec. 16, an application could be made by the petitioners for compensation which would be granted in the manner and according to the method provided by Sections 23 and 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. In other words, for unbuilt village site, compensation will be payable at the market value of such property.