DY GENERAL MANAGER Vs. PATEL VIRCHANDBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22. 04. 2004 passed by the learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge (S. D.), Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 3602/2003 to 3607/2003 whereby, the said References were partly allowed.

(2.) THE facts in brief leading rise to the filing of the present Appeals are as under ; 2. 1 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Mehsana initiated necessary proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, "the Act"] for acquiring the lands in question belonging to the respondents - claimants for temporary occupation. After hearing the owners of the lands in question, the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixed the market rate. 2. 2 However, being dissatisfied by the said amount of compensation, References were preferred u/s. 35 (3) of the Act, which were numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 3602/2003 to 3607/2003. The said Cases were taken up for hearing by the learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge (S. D.), Mehsana and after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Judge partly allowed the said References whereby, a specific direction was issued to the appellant - Corporation to pay additional amount of rent @ Rs. 3. 75 per sq. metre over and above the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer per sq. metre from the date of taking possession. The appellant - Corporation was also directed to pay 10% average rise per year in the rent after the expiry of three years period from the date of taking the possession till the possession is handed over back to the respondents - claimants. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has approached this Court by way of these Appeals.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Patel Shambhubhai Bhaichanddas v. State of Gujarat and anr. reported in 2007 (1) G. L. R. 713 wherein, it has been held that Sections 35 and 36 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 provide for temporary occupation of land for public purpose for a maximum period of three years only and that the retention of the same beyond the said period would amount to unauthorized possession and, therefore, the Collector is empowered to refer the dispute as to compensation only for the agreed term or maximum period of three years only. The observations made in Para 5. 4 of the said decision reads as under;