DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER Vs. KANTABEN AND 1 ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the questions involved in these appeals are identical and similar and as same set of evidence is adduced and relied upon by the Reference Court, all these appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order. These appeals 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 are directed against the judgment and award dated 29.4.2009 rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 369 and 371 of 1998 by 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nadiad.

(2.) THE facts arising in these appeals are that the lands belonging to respondent No. 1 situated at Village Kathwada, Taluka Matar, District Kheda were acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer under Section 35(1) of the Act for temporary acquisition for the public purpose of drilling by ONGC i.e. the present appellant. The Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 19.11.1990 and fixed the rental compensation at Rs. 1.20 per sq. mtr. per annum. Being dissatisfied with the same, the opponent - claimant raised a dispute as provided under Section 35(3) of the Act which came to be referred to the Reference Court, as aforesaid. The original claimant claimed Rs. 5/ - per sq. mtr. per annum as rental compensation which was thereafter enhanced by an order passed below Exh. 8 to Rs. 25/ - per sq. mtr. per annum. The Reference Court, by the impugned judgment and award, has passed the following order: -

(3.) MR . Mehta as well as Mr. Shah have submitted that the impugned judgment and awards are erroneous both on law and facts and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside by allowing the appeals as prayed for. Mr. Mehta contended that there was no cogent evidence led by the opponent - original claimant before the Reference Court and on wrong appreciation of the evidence which was led, the Reference Court has fixed the rental compensation for 3 years at the rate of Rs. 3.80 per sq. mtr. per annum and has also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Mr. Mehta contended that the same is beyond the scope and ambit of Section 35 of the Act and the impugned award is without jurisdiction. It is further contended that the Reference Court has overlooked the aspect of limitation as can be seen from the facts that the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 19.11.1990, whereas the references were registered in the year 1998. It is therefore contended that the appeals be allowed as prayed for.