SPL.LAQ OFFICER Vs. KARANSANG MADHUBHA

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 9, 2004, rendered by the learned Extra Assistant Judge and Special Judge (LAR) Ahmedabad (Rural) at Navrangpura in Land Acquisition Case No.2607 of 1996 to Land Acquisition Case No.2627 of 1996, by which the claimants have been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.27.60 ps. per sq.mt. for their acquired lands over and above the compensation offered to them at the rate of Re.0.40 ps. per sq.mt. by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated February 22, 1996.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojna, Saurashtra Branch Canal, Division No.2/4, Bhavnagar, proposed to the State Government to acquire the lands of village Zinzer, Taluka: Dhandhuka, District: Ahmedabad, for the public purpose of construction of canal under the Narmada Project. On receipt of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands mentioned in the said proposal 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 June 5, 1993. The land owners whose lands were proposed to be acquired were served with notices under Section 4 of the Act. On receipt of notices, the land owners opposed the proposed acquisition. After considering their objections, the Special Land Acquisition Officer forwarded his report to the State Government as contemplated by Section 5A(2) of the Act. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Zinzer, which were specified in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act were needed for the public purpose of construction of canal under the Narmada Project. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was published in the official gazette on May 27, 1994. 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.30/ - per sq.mt. However, having regard to the material placed before him, the Clavicle Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated February 22, 1996, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Re.0.40 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, the 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 (Rural), where they were registered as Land Acquisition Case No.2607 of 1996 to Land Acquisition Case No.2627 of 1996.

(3.) On behalf of the claimants, witness Jagdevsinh Ladhubha Chudasama was examined at Ex.33. The said witness mentioned in his testimony that the lands acquired were highly fertile and that each claimant was earning the net income of Rs.40,000/ - per Vigha per year from the sale of agricultural produces such as Cotton, Juwar, Gram, Wheat, etc. The witness mentioned that the boundary of village Zinzer was touching the boundary of village Akaru and that the lands of village Akaru which were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case were also acquired for the said public purpose. The witness asserted that the claimants whose lands were acquired from village Akaru were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.28/ - per sq.mt. and therefore, the claimants in the instant case were also entitled to the same compensation. According to this witness, Dhandhuka town, which is a Taluka town, was at a distance of one kilometer from the lands acquired in the instant case and as the claimants, whose lands were acquired from Dhandhuka town were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.52.50 ps. per sq.mt., the claimants should also be awarded enhanced compensation as claimed by them. Though this witness was cross -examined at length, nothing substantial could be elicited nor the assertion made by the witness that the lands of village Akaru which were previously acquired were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case could be demonstrated to be untrue.