SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. CHAUDHARI JIVATBEN MANSANGBHAIVALJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admitted. Mr.Amit C. Nanavati, learned counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of the claimant/claimants in each appeal. Mr.Krunal D. Pandya, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant, states at the Bar that interest of the appellant and that of the respondent No.2 is identical and not in conflict at all. In view of the statement made at the Bar by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, this Court is of the opinion that it is not necessary for the appellant to effect service of notice of admission of the appeals upon the respondent No.2. Having regard to the facts of the case, the appeals are taken up for final disposal today.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Main Canal Division No.20, Patan, proposed to the State Government to acquire the lands of Village: Brahmanwada, Taluka: Chanasma, District: Patan, for the public purpose of construction of Canal under Narmada Project. On perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of Village: Brahmanwada were likely to be needed for the public purpose of construction of Canal under Narmada Project. Therefore, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the official gazette on February 29, 1996. The landowners were thereafter served with the notices as required by Section 4(1) of the Act. The land-owners opposed the proposed acquisition. After considering their objections, the Special Land Acquisition Officer forwarded his report to the State Government as contemplated by Section 5-A(2) of the Act. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of Village: Brahmanwada specified in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act were needed for the public purpose of construction of Canal under Narmada Project. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made, which was published in the official gazette on July 31, 1996. The interested persons were thereafter served with the notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed the compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated November 2, 1998, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.4.50 paise per square metre. 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, Patan, where they were registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.1066 of 2002 to 1082 of 2002.

(3.) On behalf of the claimants, witness, Mr.Ramjibhai Sendhabhai Chaudhary, was examined at Exhibit 15. Apart from stating that the lands acquired were highly fertile and that each claimant was earning net profit of Rs.25,000/- to Rs.35,000/- from the sale of agricultural produces such as; millet, cotton, juvar, til, etc., the witness produced two previous awards rendered by the Reference Court in support of the claim for enhanced compensation made by the claimants. The first previous award related to the lands of this very village. It was produced at Exhibit 12. The second award related to the lands of adjoining Village: Khorsam. It was produced at Exhibit 13. It was mentioned by this witness that the lands, which were previously acquired from this very village, were similar to the lands acquired from the same village in the instant case. It was also asserted by the said witness that the lands previously acquired from the adjoining Village: Khorsam were also similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case. Though this witness was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant, nothing substantial could be elicited.