STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. LALJI GIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal is filed by the State of Gujarat to challenge the judgment and award dated 2nd December, 1998 made by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh in Reference Case No. 245 of 1988. By the said award, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference Case and has directed the appellant to pay compensation at the rate of Rs. 530/- per Are for the irrigated land of Survey No. 56 Hectare 0-68 Are-25 sq. mtr., to the original claimant who is the respondent herein, together with all statutory benefits. The lands in question are situated at village Shobhavadala, Taluka Visavadar, District Junagadh. The said land was required for the purpose of constructing road between Bilkah and Manekvada. For that purpose Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, [the "Act" for short] was published on 4th January, 1981, whereas declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 28th May, 1982. After completing the formalities, the award was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 15th November, 1984. The Special Land Acquisition Officer granted compensation at the rate of Rs.70=00 per Are. However, the respondent was not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and he preferred the aforesaid Reference case, which was partly allowed by the Reference Court as stated above.

(2.) The Government has, therefore, approached this Court to challenge the decision and award made by the Reference Court. The record and proceedings of the case are present. It is submitted by Mr. Bhatt learned A.G.P., for the appellant that the Reference itself was not maintainable, since it was beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 18 of the Act. He has submitted that award was made on 15th November, 1984. Shortly thereafter, on 21st November, 1984, notice under Section 12(2) of the Act was served and the amount of compensation was paid on 26th March, 1985. Reference under Section 18 of the Act was made on 13th October, 1987. According to Mr. Bhatt when notice has been served on the respondent, the period of limitation under Section 18 of the Act would be six weeks from the date of receipt of notice for filing reference. However, the present reference has been filed on 13th October, 1987 i.e., after the expiration of period of limitation. Mr. Purani learned advocate appearing for Mr. Vimal Patel learned advocate for the respondent has however, contested the submission of Mr. Bhatt. According to him, notice under Section 12(2) of the Act is not served and, therefore, the reference is within the period of limitation. Mr. Bhatt has further submitted that there were sale instances available, but the Reference Court has not thought it fit to have them on record and decide the quantum in accordance therewith. The Court has however, proceeded to determine the compensation on the basis of yield method. He has, therefore, submitted that this appeal be allowed. Mr. Purani has also opposed this submission of Mr. Bhatt. According to him the method adopted by the Reference Court is also recognized in law and the quantum of compensation arrived at on the basis of such method cannot be said to be improper and unjust. He, therefore, submitted that the appeal is required to be dismissed.

(3.) I have closely perused the record and proceedings of the case. I have also carefully considered the rival submissions. So far as the submission of Mr. Bhatt with regard to limitation is concerned, it appears from the record that plea regarding limitation was raised in the written statement. It was contended in paragraph 3 thereof, that the Reference was beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, it was required to be rejected. On the basis of such pleadings, the Reference Court has framed the issue. Issue no. 3 reads as under :-