SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. SHANKERBHAI DHARAMSHIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHAT is challenged in 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, is the legality of the common judgment and award dated September 17, 2005, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Narmada Yojana, Ahmedabad (Rural), in Land Acquisition Case Nos.443 of 1999 to 461 of 1999, by which the claimants have been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.26/ - 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.1.80 ps. per sq.mt. for irrigated lands and Rs.1.20 ps. per sq.mt. for non irrigated lands by his award dated December 30, 1998.

(2.) THE Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Canal Division No.4/5, Mehsana, proposed to the State Government to acquire the lands of village Vanpardi, Taluka: Viramgam, District: Ahmedabad, for the public purpose of construction of Zinzuwada Branch Canal under the Narmada Project. On perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Vanpardi, which were specified in the proposal of the Executive Engineer, 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 26, 1996. The land owners were thereafter served with notices as required by Section 4(1) of the Act. On receipt of notices, they opposed the proposed acquisition. After considering their objections, the Special Land Acquisition Officer forwarded his report as contemplated by Section 5 -A(2) of the Act to the State Government. On scrutiny of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Vanpardi which were specified in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act were needed for the public purpose of construction of Zinzuwada Branch Canal under the Narmada Project. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was published in the official gazette on September 9, 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 December 30, 1998, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.1.80 ps. per sq.mt. for irrigated lands and Rs.1.20 ps. per sq.mt. for non -irrigated lands. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made to them 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 determination of just amount of compensation payable to them. Accordingly, References were made to the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural), where they were registered as Land Acquisition Case Nos.443 of 1999 to 461 of 1999.

(3.) ON behalf of the claimants, witness Shankarbhai Dharamsinhbhai Patel was examined at Ex.38. The witness mentioned in his testimony that the lands acquired were highly fertile and as the water was available for irrigation, each claimant was able to raise crops in different seasons. According to the said witness, after deducting the cost of cultivation, each claimant was able to earn 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. which were being sold at Becharaji, Kadi, Katosan, Mandal and Unjha. The witness claimed before the Court that the boundary of village Nayakpura was touching the boundary of his village and that earlier, lands were acquired from village Nayakpura for the purpose of construction of canal under the Narmada Project. What was asserted by the witness was that the lands which were acquired from village Nayakpura were similar in all respects including fertility to the lands acquired in the instant case and that similar crops were being raised on the lands. This witness was cross -examined on behalf of the acquiring authorities. However, nothing substantial could be elicited during his cross -examination. The assertion made by the witness that the lands which were acquired from village Nayakpura were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case could not be demonstrated to be untrue.