EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. RASHIKLAL SANKALCHAND SHAH

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 the common judgment and award dated April 29, 2005, rendered by the learned Assistant Judge and Special Judge (LAR), Ahmedabad (R) at Ahmedabad, in Land Acquisition Case No.258 of 1999 to Land Acquisition Case No.269 of 1999 with Land Acquisition Case No.361 of 2002 to Land Acquisition Case No.363 of 2002, by which the claimants have been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.23.40 ps. per sq.mt. for their acquired lands over and above the compensation offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq.mt. for irrigated lands and Rs.2/- per sq.mt. for non-irrigated lands, by his award dated March 30, 1999.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Goraiya Branch Canal, Gandhinagar, proposed to the State Government to acquire the lands of village Rampura, Taluka: Viramgam, District: Ahmedabad, for the public purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. On scrutiny of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Rampura were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, a Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the official gazette on November 27, 1996. Thereafter, the land owners were served with notices under Section 4(1) of the Act. On service of notice, they opposed the proposed acquisition. After considering their objections, the Special Land Acquisition Officer forwarded his report to the State Government as contemplated by Section 5A(2) of the Act. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Rampura, which were specified in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act, were needed for the public purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was published in the official gazette on July 2, 1997. The interested persons were thereafter served with notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.50/- per sq.mt. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated March 30, 1999, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.3/- per sq.mt. for irrigated lands and Rs.2/- per sq.mt. for non-irrigated lands. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was totally inadequate. Therefore, they filed applications under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer their cases to the Court for determination of just amount of compensation payable to them. Accordingly, References were made to the District Court, Ahmedabad (R) where they were registered as Land Acquisition Case No.258 of 1999 to Land Acquisition Case No.269 of 1999 with Land Acquisition Case No.361 of 2002 to Land Acquisition Case No.363 of 2002.

(3.) On behalf of the claimants, witness Sanjaykumar Rameshchandra Shah was examined at Ex.38. The witness claimed that the lands acquired were highly fertile as a result of which, the claimants were able to raise different crops in three different seasons. According to this witness, each claimant was earning the net income of Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per year per Vigha from the sale of agricultural produces such as cumin seeds, cotton, Juwar, millet, wheat, etc. The witness further mentioned before the Court that his village Rampura was fully developed and that Kadi-Viramgam, Viramgam-Becharaji and Rampura-Detroj roads were passing through his village. It was claimed by the said witness that the lands of village Kanz and the lands situated in his village were similar in all respects including fertility but from the viewpoint of development, his village was more developed than village Kanz. The witness further stated that the boundaries of his village and village Kanz were common. The witness produced the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village Kanz at Ex.41 for consideration of the Court and claimed that the claimants should be awarded compensation on the basis of the said award. The witness further stated that the lands of village Detroj were situated quite nearby the acquired lands and had also same fertility as that of the lands acquired in the instant case. After making that assertion, the witness produced the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village Detroj at Ex.42. Though this witness was cross-examined at length on behalf of the appellants, nothing substantial could be elicited nor assertion made by him that the boundaries of village Kanz and his village were common and that the lands of village Kanz were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case could be demonstrated to be untrue.