GENERAL MANAGER Vs. MAFABHAI GANDABHAI VANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS common question of law and facts arise in these appeals and as the same set of evidence is adduced before the Reference Court, the same were heard together and are hereby decided by this common judgment. These appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (the Act) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) by the acquiring body challenging the common judgment and award dated 11.10.2005 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana in Land Reference Case Nos. 3756 -3757/2003.

(2.) THE record of the case reveals that the acquiring body acquired land belonging to the respondent -original claimants temporarily under the Section 35 of the Act for the public purpose of drilling project by ONGC, situated at village Telavi, Taluka and District Mehsana. The Land Acquisition Officer by award dated 28.07.1980 fixed the rental compensation @ 0.20 ps./ - sq. mtr. per year. Aggrieved by the same, the original claimants preferred the aforesaid references before the Reference Court and claimed Rs. 15/ - sq. Mtr. per year wherein by the impugned order dated 11.10.2005 following order is passed:

(3.) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant -acquiring body has taken this Court through the impugned judgment and award. It is submitted that the impugned judgment and award is erroneous, illegal and the same is contrary to the facts on record and de hors the provisions of the Act. It was submitted that the Reference Court has materially erred in awarding 10% rise without there being any cogent evidence on record. Relying upon the judgments in case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission Ltd. v. Pandya Prahladbhai Manilal & Ors., in : 2006 (3) G.L.H. 662 as well as in case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Sankarji Hemaji & Anr., : 2008 (2) GLR 1226 it is contended that the Reference Court has exceeded its jurisdiction by awarding rental compensation beyond the period of three years. It is contended that without taking into consideration the aspect of limitation the references were entertained and the same are allowed. It is therefore contended that the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the references deserve to be remanded back for re -hearing before the Reference Court.