EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. THAKORE PRABHANJI SURSANGJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case appears to be that the proposals were made for acquisition of the lands for Narmada Canal Project Unit 18, Mehsana for the lands situated at Village Tejpura. Thereafter, the notification was published under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") on 10.2.1995 in the Government Gazette. The notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 29.6.1995 and the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act were initiated by the Land Acquisition Officer (hereinafter referred to "LAO"). Thereafter the award came to be passed on 1.11.1996 by the Special LAO and he awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1.10 per sq. mtr., for non-irrigated land and Rs.1.65 per sq. mtr., for irrigated land (Rs.11,000/- per hectre for non-irrigated land and Rs. 16,500/- per hectre for irrigated land). The land owner/claimants were not satisfied with the compensation award by the LAO and, therefore, the disputes were raised, which ultimately came to be referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Reference Cases No.2684/2003 to 2686/2003. The Reference Court, during the course of the adjudication and ultimately while passing the judgement, relied upon its earlier decision in Land Reference Cases No. 134/ 1997 to 145/1997 for the land acquired in the very village Virsoda, for which the additional amount of market value was fixed at Rs.15.40 per sq. mtr. It has also relied upon its earlier decision in Reference Cases No. 1073/1997 to 1081/1997 for the land acquired of Village Tejpura. The Reference Court found that the notification in the reference cases No. 1073/1997 to 1081/1997 was of Feb., 1995 and so was in the present case and, therefore, ultimately applied the same yardstick for assessment of the market value and concluded that the market value of the land would be Rs.17/- per sq. mtrs. and thereafter passed the judgement and award on 7.5.2005. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals.

(2.) Heard Mr.Chhaya, learned AGP for the State appellant and Mr.Nanavati, learned Counsel for the original claimant. Considered the record and proceedings of the Reference Court.

(3.) It appears that there is no dispute on the point that earlier Land Reference Cases No.1073 of 1997 to 1081 of 1997, which were decided on 15.2.2001 by the Reference Court and on the basis of which the present impugned award came to be passed, were pertaining to the very village Tejpur. There is also no dispute on the point that the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the said case was of 3.2.1995, whereas in the present case the notification under Section 4 is published on 10.2.1995, therefore, the same month and year of 1995. There is also no dispute for the proximity of the land situated in the very village. Therefore, if the Reference Court has relied upon its earlier award for the very land situated in the very village in the nearby proximity, it cannot be said that any error is committed by the Reference Court while assessing the market value and passing the award.