SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. CHAUDHARI KESHARBHAI VELJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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, are directed against common judgment and award dated November 22, 2004 rendered by the learned Joint District Judge, 4th Fast Track Court, Patan, in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.1162 of 2002 to 1173 of 2002 & 1509 of 2002 by which the claimants have been awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.20.00 per square metre for their acquired lands over and above the compensation offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.4.50 paise per square metre by his award dated August 12, 1998.

(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 land-owners 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 August 12, 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.1162 of 2002 to 1173 of 2002 & 1509 of 2002.

(3.) On behalf of the claimants, witness, Mr.Shankerbhai Ramjibhai 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 appellants, nothing substantial could be elicited.