EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. MANSUKHBHAI SHERIYABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged in these Appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the acquiring body i.e. the Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.3, Kevadia Colony, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Corporation Limited, Bharuch, is the legality of the common judgment and award dated November 16, 1999, rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Bharuch, Court Camp at Rajpipla, in Land Acquisition Case No.624 of 1996 to Land Acquisition Case No.646 of 1996 by which the claimants have been awarded compensation in all at the rate of Rs.10/- per sq.mt. for their acquired lands.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Construction Division No.3, Kevadia Colony, Bharuch, proposed to the State Government to acquire the lands of village Indravarna, Taluka: Nandod, District: Bharuch (now District: Narmada), for the public purpose of construction of Garudeshwar Weir under the Narmada Nigam Project. On scrutiny of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands specified in the said proposal situated at village Indravarna were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued which was published in the official gazette on September 19, 1991. The land owners whose lands were proposed to be acquired were served with notices under Section 4 of the Act. After receipt of notices, the land owners opposed the proposed acquisition. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the objections lodged by the land owners, forwarded his report to the State Government as contemplated by Section 5A(2) of the Act. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Indravarna which were specified in the notification published in the gazette under Section 4 of the Act were needed for the public purpose of construction of Garudeshwar Weir under the Narmada Nigam Project. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was published in the official gazette on April 1, 1993. The interested persons were thereafter served with notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.15/- per sq.mt. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.2.10 ps. per sq.mt. for irrigated lands and Rs.1.40 ps. per sq.mt. for non-irrigated lands, by his award dated November 8, 1994. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was totally inadequate. Therefore, they submitted applications under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer their cases to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation payable to them. Accordingly, References were made to the District Court, Bharuch, where they were registered as Land Acquisition Case No.624 of 1996 to Land Acquisition Case No.646 of 1996. The cases were thereafter referred for disposal to the Court of learned Assistant Judge, who was camping at Rajpipla.

(3.) On behalf of the claimants, witness Narshibhai Ramjibhai was examined at Ex.12. The witness mentioned that the lands acquired were highly fertile and that each claimant was earning substantial income from the sale of agricultural produces such as cotton, sugarcane, etc. The witness mentioned before the Reference Court that previously, from this very village, lands were acquired and that the claimants were entitled to compensation on the basis of the previous award of the Reference Court. The witness produced copy of the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of this very village at Ex.13. Though this witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the acquiring body, nothing substantial could be elicited. No witness was examined either by the State Government or by the acquiring body.