STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KADAVABHAI UKABHAI PAGHADAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above referred appeals under Sec. 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894") are directed against the common judgment dtd. 30/6/2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in;

(2.) Ms Manisha L. Shah, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the lands acquired are the agricultural lands with no future prospects of development. It is further contended that reliance is placed on the agreements to sell rather than the sale instances. Also, there is no independent consideration of the evidence of the respondent-State. The evidence produced has been disregarded on the ground of it being after the issuance of Sec. 4 notification; however, there ought to have some findings recorded in the evidence. Moreover, the quantification arrived at by the reference court is based on conjectures and surmises, inasmuch as, the sale instances relied upon by the claimants were for Rs.400.00 and Rs.350.00 and, the reference court has arrived at Rs.280.00. For arriving at Rs.280.00 there are no reasons assigned by the learned Judge. It is further submitted that despite this Court was seized of the matter, the learned Judge exercising the powers under Sec. 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), corrected the order converting the units from sq. yards to sq. mtrs. and the market value which now has been arrived is at the rate of Rs.402.00 per sq. mtr.

(3.) Per contra Mr Mihir J. Thakore, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Tejas P. Satta, learned advocate for the claimants, at the outset has submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Judge in passing the order dtd. 2/3/2017, exercising the powers under Sec. 152 and converting the sq. yard into sq. mtr. and deriving the figure of the compensation. No error has been committed by the learned Judge in correcting the mathematical error inasmuch as, in the judgment, the amount derived was Rs.280.00 per sq. yard. Appreciating the mistake, Rs.280.00 was thereafter, multiplied by the unit of sq. yard i.e. 1.196. The figure derived was Rs.334.88. 10% increase was allowed for two years and the clear amount of compensation determined was Rs.401.84 per sq. mtr., which was rounded off to Rs.402.00. Therefore, it is incorrect to argue that the units have been wrongly applied while converting the area from sq. yard to sq. mtr.