SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. PADMABA GHANSHYAMSINH CHUDASMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above-numbered 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, are directed against the common judgment and award dated 19.04.2005 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge & Special Judge (L.A.R.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura, in Land Acquisition Case Nos.960 of 1998 to 975 of 1998 whereby the claimants have been awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.27.60 paise per square metre over and above the compensation awarded to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.0.40 paise per square metre by his award dated 22.02.1996, for their acquired lands.

(2.) A proposal was received by the State Government from the Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojana, Saurashtra Branch Canal, Division No.2/4, Bhavnagar, to acquire the lands of Village: Kharad, Taluka: Dhandhuka, District: Ahmedabad, for the public purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. On consideration of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands specified in the said proposal were likely to be needed for the said purpose and, therefore, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the official gazette on 03.06.1993. The land-owners whose lands were proposed to be acquired were thereafter served with notices under Section 4 of the Act. They filed their objections against the proposed acquisition. Thereafter, a report was forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the State Government as envisaged by Section 5-A(2) of the Act. On scrutiny of the said report, the State Government, being satisfied, that the lands of Village: Kharad, as specified in notification under Section 4(1) of the Act were needed for the public purpose of construction of Narmada Canal, issued a declaration under Section 6 of the Act, which was published in the official gazette on 28.04.1994. The interested persons were thereafter issued with notices under Section 9 of the Act to appear before the Special Land Acquisition Officer for determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.30/- per square metre. However, having regard to the material placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 22.02.1996, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.0.40 paise per square metre. Being aggrieved by the offer of compensation made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer which the claimants found to be totally inadequate, they submitted applications requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matters to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation payable to them. Accordingly, references were made to the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), which were numbered as Land Acquisition Case Nos.960 of 1998 to 975 of 1998.

(3.) On behalf of the claimants, witness Mr.Sajjansinh Bhurubha Chudasma was examined at Exhibit 30. In his deposition, he stated that the acquired lands were fertile and were having adequate irrigation facility and that the claimants were growing different crops in a year and earning a net agricultural income of about Rs.60,000/- per vigha per year from the sale of agricultural produces. This witness further deposed that the boundary of Village: Kharad was adjoining to Village: Kothadia and that the Narmada Canal was entering Village: Kharad from Village: Kothadia and proceeding towards Village: Jinzar. He further stated that the lands of Village: Kothadia, which were acquired earlier for the public purpose of construction of Narmada Canal, and the lands which were the subject matter of the present acquisition, were similar in all respects as far as quality and fertility was concerned. This witness produced copies of Village Form No.7/12 at Exhibits 15 to 27; copy of map of District Inspector of Land Records at Exhibit 28; copy of the previous judgment and award of the Reference Court pertaining to the lands of Village: Jinzar at Exhibit 29; and copy of previous judgment and award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Village: Kothadia at Exhibit 33, in support of his claim for enhanced compensation. This witness was subjected to a lengthy cross-examination by the opposing counsel, but nothing fruitful could be elicited from him to dislodge the statements he made in his examination-in-chief. In spite of sufficient opportunity, the appellant herein did not lead any oral or documentary evidence before the Reference Court.