PATEL SHAMBHUBHAI BHAICHANDDAS Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of appeals arises from a common decisions rendered by the Assistant Judge, Mehsana, in Land Reference Cases No. 2131/1993, 2132/1993 and 2133/1993. The date of the judgment and award is 2nd September, 1998. The original applicants have preferred these appeals to challenge the decision of the Court regarding the quantum of compensation determined by it for the land under temporary occupation of the respondents.

(2.) The appellants are the owners of agricultural lands [the "land" for short] situated on the outskirts of village Chalasan, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana. As the land was required for drilling oil wells, the Project Manager, ONGC, Mehsana Project, submitted a proposal for temporary occupation of the land. Since it appeared to the appropriate Government that land was needed for public purpose, the said proposal was accepted by it and in pursuance thereof, it exercised powers under section 35 (1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] and directed the Collector to procure the occupation of the land. After complying with the necessary formalities, the Collector procured the occupation of the land on 30th July, 1991 by private negotiations. The Collector thereafter fixed the compensation which can also be termed as rent for the land under occupation, on 16th September, 1991 at Rs. 0=80 paise per sq. mtr., per year. Since the appellants were totally dissatisfied with the rate of compensation fixed by the Collector they raised dispute. The Collector referred the difference as to the sufficiency of compensation to the Court for its decision under Section 35 (3) of the Act. The proceedings were numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Cases No. 2131/1993, 2132/1993 and 2133/1993. Before the Civil Court the claim was made for Rs.7/- per sq. mtr., per year. The claim was based on the averments that the land was fertile land; there was facility of irrigation and the appellants obtained various crops in three seasons. According to them, annual income from the agricultural produce was Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. It was also averred that the village Chalasan had various facilities such as electricity, water supply, school, hospital, etc. On these averments, it was pleaded that the compensation at the rate of Rs. 0=80 paise per sq. mtr., was hopelessly inadequate and the appellants deserved to have it at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq. mtr.

(3.) I have heard Mr. AJ Patel, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Jayesh Patel for the appellants, Ms. Hansa Punani, Ld. AGP for respondent no. 1 - State and Mr. Ajay R Mehta, learned advocate for respondent no. 2 - ONGC. They have taken me through the record of these appeals. Common evidence has been recorded in all the three reference cases.