STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL BHARATKUMAR MAGANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ( Sthe Act for short) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the appellants have challenged the legality of common judgment and award dated August 13,2003, rendered by the learned Joint District Judge, Fast Track Court (II), Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 248 to 350 of 1997, by which the claimants have been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.225/- per sq.mt. for irrigated lands and Rs.223/- per sq.mt. for non-irrigated lands, in addition to compensation offered to them at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.mt. for irrigated lands and Rs.6/- per sq.mt. for non-irrigated lands by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated September 20,1995.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Dharoi Canal Scheme No.3, Visnagar proposed to the State Government to acquire several pieces of agricultural lands of village Unjha, Taluka Unjha, District Mehsana for the public purpose of construction of (Sipu) Dharoi Canal Project. On perusal of the same, the State Government was satisfied that the lands mentioned therein 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 March 15,1992. The owners of the lands were served with notices as required by Section 4 of the Act and an inquiry was conducted. On conclusion of inquiry, a report, as contemplated by Section 5A(2) of the Act, was forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the State Government. On consideration of the same, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Unjha, specified in the Notification published under Section 4 of the Act, were needed for the public purpose of construction of (Sipu) Dharoi Canal Project. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made, which was published in the Official Gazette on December 21,1992. 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.200/- per sq.mt. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.8/- per sq.mt. for irrigated lands and Rs.6/- per sq.mt. for non-irrigated lands by his award dated September 20,1995. 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,Mehsana, where they were registered as noticed earlier.

(3.) On behalf of the claimants, witness Gopalbhai Prabhudas Patel was examined at Exh.18. After giving particulars of the lands acquired, the witness mentioned before the court that all the lands were adjoining to each other and bearing good potentiality. The witness stated that village Unjha was considered to be a Taluka place and was hardly at a distance of 5 Kms. from Sidhpur. The witness further informed the Court that Ahmedabad-Delhi Highway No.8 was passing through Unjha village. The witness further stated that Unjha is a Railway Junction and well connected with road and rail. After mentioning that the population of the village was 1 lac, it was mentioned that it was one of the biggest commercial markets of Asia. The witness also informed the Court that all kinds of educational institutions, G.I.D.C. Industrial Units, Ginning and Cleaning Factories etc. were situated at village Unjha. The witness pointed out to the court that earlier also lands were acquired from his village on two occasions and, therefore, on the basis of awards rendered by the Reference Court in those two cases, the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation. The witness produced those two awards of the Reference Court at Exh.11 and Exh.12. The witness also produced certain sale deeds relating to the lands of village Unjha at Exhs.13 to 15 for consideration of the Court. In order to substantiate his claim that Unjha town was well developed town, he produced necessary map at Exh.20.