SPL LAQ OFFICER Vs. NAVALSANG DHIRUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged in the above numbered 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 common judgment and award dated February 27, 2002 rendered by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge & Special Judge (LAR), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura, in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 696 of 1995 to 709 of 1995 by which the claimants have been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 77.90 Paise per square metre for their acquired lands over and above the compensation offered to them at the rate of Rs. 5.10 Paise per square metre by award dated February 3, 1994 made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act. The claimants by filing Cross Objections claim that they should have been awarded interest from the date on which possession of the lands acquired was taken and not from the date of publication of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act and that they should also have been awarded interest on the amount awarded under Section 23(1-A) of the Act

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Main Canal, Construction Division Nos. 3/2, Gandhinagar, proposed to the State Government to acquire lands of Village: Sanathal, Taluka: Sanand, District: Ahmedabad for the public purpose of construction of Dholka Branch Canal under Sardar Sarovar Project. On perusal of the same, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of Village: Sanathal mentioned therein were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, a notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued, which was published in the official gazette on October 30, 1991. Thereafter, necessary inquiry was conducted under Section 5A of the Act after which a report was submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer 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: Sanathal specified in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act were needed for the public purpose of construction of Dholka Branch Canal under Sardar Sarovar Project. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made, which was published in the official gazette on August 27, 1992. The interested persons were thereafter served with the notices for determination of compensation payable to them. Accordingly, the claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 100=00 per square metre. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 5.10 Paise per square metre by award dated February 3, 1994. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made to them 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, the references were made to the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura, where they were numbered as Land Acquisition Case Nos. 696 of 1995 to 709 of 1995.

(3.) On behalf of the claimants, witness Mr. Babubhai Bhupatsang was examined at Exhibit 43. The witness stated before the Court that the lands acquired were even and fertile lands and as irrigation facilities were available, each claimant was able to raise crops such as; paddy, wheat, groundnut, cumin-seeds, vegetables, etc. in a year. The witness further asserted that each claimant was able to earn net income of Rs. 45,000.00 per year per vigha from the sale of agricultural produces. The witness maintained before the Court that the boundaries of Village: Shela, Village: Telav, Village: Kolat, Village: Navapura, Village: Sarkhej, Village: Akob, and Village: Fatehpura were touching the boundaries of Village: Sanathal. According to this witness, Village: Sanathal was within the limits of Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority. The witness stated that Village: Sanathal was situated at a distance of 6 Kilometres from Sanand Town, which was the centre of Taluka whereas it was situated at a distance of 1 Kilometre away from Sarkhej Cross Roads. The witness further stated that Ahmedabad-Bavla and Sanand-Viramgam Highways were situated just near Village: Sanathal and Telav-Sanand Road was also passing near Village: Sanathal. The witness asserted that the lands acquired in the instant cases were touching Ahmedabad-Sarkhej-Bavla Highway as well as Ahmedabad-Viramgam Highway. The witness informed the Court that Village: Sanathal was fully developed and facilities such as; banks, cooperative societies, telephone, railway station, dispensaries, private hospitals, S.T.Bus, etc. were available in the village. According to this witness, Eklavya High School as well as several farms were located in Village: Sanathal and that the lands were plotted for the purpose of construction of residential societies. In support of the assertion made by him, the witness produced necessary certificate issued by Talati-cum-Mantri at Exhibit 38. The witness further stated that Dholka Branch Canal was coming from Village: Garodiya and going to Village: Godhavi from which it was passing through Village: Telav and reaching his Village: Sanathal. The witness mentioned that the lands of Village: Shela were adjoining to the lands acquired in the instant cases and that lands of Village: Sanathal were far better in quality than the lands of Village: Shela. According to this witness, the lands from Village: Shela were also acquired for the purpose of construction of canal regarding which an award was rendered by the Reference Court. The witness produced a copy of the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Village: Shela at Exhibit 39. The witness further stated that Village: Ghuma was situated at a distance of 2 Kilometres away and produced previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Village: Ghuma at Exhibit 40. This witness was cross examined by the learned Counsel for the Acquiring Authorities. In his cross-examination, the witness mentioned that he was not knowing about sale transactions, which had taken place in the last five years nor was he knowing about correct prices of the lands prevailing in his village. The witness further stated that Village: Telav was situated at a distance of 1/2 Kilometre away from his village and that no documentary evidence was produced by the claimants before the Special Land Acquisition Officer in support of their claim for compensation.