SPL LAND ACQ OFFICER Vs. BHAILAL DIPUBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admitted. Mr. G.M. Amin, learned Counsel, waives service of notice on behalf of the claimant/s in each appeal. Having regard to the facts of the case, the appeals are taken up for final disposal today. 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 common judgment and award dated March 31, 2006, rendered by the learned 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (R) at Navrangpura, in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 343 to 359 of 2002, by which the claimants have been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs. 27.40 Ps. per sq.mt., for their acquired lands, over and above the compensation offered to them at the rate of Rs. 2.40 Ps. per sq.mt. by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated December 22, 2000.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojna, Division No. 8, Dholka proposed to the State Government to acquire lands of village Rupgadh, Taluka : Dholka, District : Ahmedabad for the public purpose of construction of a canal under Narmada Project. On perusal of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Rupgadh specified 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 August 28, 1998. Thereafter necessary inquiry as contemplated by Section 5A of the Act was conducted. On completion 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 said report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Rupgadh, which were specified in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act were needed for the public purpose of construction of a canal under Narmada Project. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made, which was published in the Official Gazette on March 16, 1999. The interested persons were thereafter served with 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. 50/- per sq.mt. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated December 22, 2000 offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 2.40 Ps. per sq.mt. 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, Ahmedabad (R) at Navrangpura, where they were numbered as Land Acquisition Case Nos. 343 to 359 of 2002.

(3.) On behalf of the claimants, witness Ranjitbhai Ravjibhai Parmar was examined at Exh.27 in support of their claim for enhanced compensation. The witness stated that the lands acquired were highly fertile and that as they were irrigated and even, each claimant was able to raise crops of cotton, cumin-seeds, juvar, til, paddy, wheat etc. The witness mentioned that each claimant was able to earn net profit of Rs. 40,000/- per Bigha per year from the sale of agricultural produces. In order to support his claim that the lands acquired were highly fertile, the witness produced 7/12 Extracts relating to the lands acquired at Exhs.14 to 19. The witness stated that boundaries of his village Rupgadh were touching the boundaries of village Koth and that Narmada canal was coming from village Koth to the sim of his village. The witness further explained that the survey numbers of village Koth and the survey numbers acquired in the instant case for the purpose of construction of a canal under the Narmada Project were adjoining each other. The witness mentioned that for the purpose of construction of canal under Narmada Project, lands of village Koth were acquired, for which the Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 29.80 ps. per sq.mt. and, therefore, the claimants were entitled to enhanced compensation on the basis of the said previous award. The witness produced previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of village Koth at Exh.24. The witness further asserted that the lands of village Koth, which were acquired earlier for the public purpose of construction of a canal under Narmada Project were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case including fertility and that similar crops were being raised on the lands of both the villages. The witness stated that a Tar-road was available for the purpose of approaching village Koth from his village and that village Koth was situated at a distance of 1-1/2 KM away from his village. This witness was cross-examined by the learned Counsel for the acquiring authorities. However, nothing substantial could be elicited nor the assertion made by the witness that the lands which were acquired previously from village Koth were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case could be demonstrated to be untrue.