GENERAL MANAGER Vs. ZALA SHIVSINH SURSINH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by Acquiring Body u/s. 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with S. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and award in Land Reference Case No. 5735 of 2003 dated 20.9.2005 passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana. The record of the case reveals that the State Government acquired land belonging to the respondent -original claimant temporarily under the provisions of Section 35 of the Act for the public purpose of drilling project by ONGC situated at village Govindwadi (Sanathal), Taluka District Mehsana. The Special Land Acquisition Officer respondent No. 2 herein, fixed the rental compensation @ 0.40 ps. per sq. mtr. per year. It may be noted that respondent No. 2 Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the said order on 20.7.1987.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the rental compensation so fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the original claimant preferred the Reference on 16.7.2001 which came to be referred to the Reference Court u/s. 35(3) of the Act and the same came to be registered as Land Reference Case No. 5735 of 2003. The Reference Court vide impugned judgment and award dated 20.9.2005 passed the following order:

(3.) MR . Marshall, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. V.K. Bhatia, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant has taken this Court through the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Marshall 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 on behalf of the appellant that the Reference Court has materially erred in awarding 10% rise without there being any cogent evidence on record. Mr. Marshall further relying upon the judgment in case of Oil & Natural Gas Commission Ltd. v. Pandya Prahladbhai Manilal and others, reported in, 2006(3) G.L.H. 662 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in case of Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Sankarji Hemaji & Anr., reported in : 2008(2) GLR 1226 and contended that the Reference Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction by awarding rental compensation beyond the period of three years. Mr. Marshall therefore contended that the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the Reference deserves to be remanded back for its rehearing before the Reference Court.