SPECIAL LAQ OFFICER Vs. PATEL GANGARAMBHAI KHODIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .The appellants have challenged in these appeals the impugned common judgment and award dated 27.11.2001 passed by the learned 4th Joint Civil Judge, Mehsana in LAR Nos.353 to 363 of 2001 whereby the learned Judge has awarded additional compensation of Rs.26/= per sq. mtr. over and above the compensation paid to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the meagre rate of Rs.4.50 per sq. mtr. Thus, in all Rs.30.50 per sq. mtr. is awarded to the claimants.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader Mr.Oza for the appellants vehemently submitted that the learned Judge ought not to have taken into consideration the judgments at Exh.16, 17, 18, 19, 42 and 47 for two reasons (i) that they were of village Mathasur, Budasan and Karannagar, which were at far distance from village Adundara and (ii) the purpose for acquisition is also totally different. In those cases, the lands were acquired either for the purpose of road or for GIDC or for ONGC. Mr.Oza further submitted that though the judgment and award dated 3.8.1999 Ex.43 was passed by the District Court for this very village Adundara awarding total compensation @Rs.3.05 per (rent per year) sq. mtr. was awarded to the claimants the same could not have been relied upon by the learned Judge for coming to the conclusion that in these cases also the respondents-claimants were entitled for the compensation @Rs.30.05 because it was a temporary acquisition and the purpose was also totally different. It was acquired for ONGC that too for a temporary period. Mr.Oza relying on the common judgment dated 8.8.2001 passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in LAR Nos.2725 to 2741 of 1996 submitted that the learned Judge should have awarded total compensation @Rs.12 per sq. mtr. to the respondents-claimants as village Deusana was adjacent to village Adundara and the purpose for acquisition was also the same. He submitted that the learned Judge has wrongly discarded this judgment and awarded Rs.30.50 per sq. mtr. for respondents-claimants.

(3.) However, learned counsel Mr.Patel for the respondents-claimants appearing in all these appeals relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of ANOOP JAISWAL v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA reported in AIR 1984 SC 636 and ADDITIONAL SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER v. YAMANAPPA BASALINGAPPA CHALWADI reported in AIR 1994 SC 1836 submitted that though Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana awarded only Rs.12/= per sq. mtr. to the claimants of Deusana village the same were not rightly relied upon by the learned Judge in view of the judgment at Ex.43 for this very village Adundara. He submitted that though there may be temporary acquisition for a different purpose by different agency i.e. ONGC, but the same was to be relied upon by the learned Judge and it was rightly relied upon for awarding total compensation @Rs.30.50 per sq. mtr. and, therefore, this court should not interfere with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Judge in these appeals. In case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Davangere v. P.Veerabhadrappa reported in AIR 1984 SC 774, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 10 years multiplier would be the proper method in determining the total market value by following the method of capitalization as just and reasonable method. This judgment was later on relied upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Yamanappa (supra). In the instant case, relying on the judgment at Ex.43 for this very village Adundara if the learned Judge has awarded total compensation @Rs.30.50 applying multiplier of 10 then certainly this court would not interfere with such judgment and award.