SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. BHOLABHAI RAMJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WITH the consent of the parties, these First Appeals as well as these Cross Objections have taken up for their final hearing.

(2.) LOOKING to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the land of the claimants, is situated at village Karsanpura, Taluka Kheralu, Dist. Mehsana. This land was acquired for the purpose of Karsanpura approach road. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 21.7.1990 and thereafter, Notification under Section 6 was published on 19.9.1990. Necessary procedure was followed. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer pronounced compensation award on 27.1.1992 and awarded price at Rs.1.95Ps. per Sq. Mtr. The claimants received certified copy of this order passed by the Land Acquisition Officer on 10.5.1993. It appears that Reference cases were filed through Collector. It also appears that looking to the evidence on record especially Exhibit 10 and looking to the award passed by the concerned District Court in Land Acquisition Reference No.196 of 1986 to 199 of 1986, wherein ultimately, this Court in First Appeals No.410 of 1994 to 413 of 1994 with Cross Objections, fixed the price at Rs.18/ - per Sq. Mtr. for the land, which was acquired and situated at village Undhai situated in the same taluka Kheralu, Dist. Mehsana. It appears that geographically this land is similar to the land, which acquired in facts of the present case. It also appears that both the lands, one of village Undhai and another of village Karsanpura are situated in the same Taluka. The distance between these two lands are approximately 9 kms. Looking to the Notification issued under Section 4 for village Undhai is 1984, whereas in the present case, Notification under Section 4 is of the year 1990. Thus, the land, which is situated and acquired at village Undhai, Ta. Kheralu, Dist. Mehsana, for which this Court has fixed the compensation at Rs.18/ - per Sq. Mtr., while delivering the judgment of First Appeals No.410 of 1994 to 413 of 1994 along with Cross Objections therein, appears to be comparable with the land situated at village Karsanpura. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Looking to the overall situation of the land, it appears that in the present case also, Rs.20/ - per Sq. Mtr. ought to have been awarded by the trial Court as compensation because for the village Undhai, Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is of the year 1984, whereas in the present case, Notification under Section 4 of the Act, was issued on 23.7.1990. Thus, looking to this difference in Section 4 Notification, the total compensation at Rs.20/ - per Sq. Mtr. is hereby awarded. In fact, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in First Appeals and on behalf of claimants in Cross Objections that they are entitled for more than Rs.20/ - per Sq. Mtr. , but, the claimants have prayed Rs.20/ - per Sq. Mtr. before the trial Court and therefore, if this Court fixes the compensation at Rs.20/ - per Sq. Mtr., it will be in fitness of the facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) AS a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts that as per the judgment delivered by this Court in First Appeals No.410 of 1994 to 413 of 1994 with Cross Objections, at Rs.18/ - per Sq. Mtr. is awarded as compensation for the village Undhai, Ta. Kheralu, Dist. Mehsana, in which, Notification under Section 4 in the present case, on 21.7.1990 and looking to the proximity of distance between these two lands, in my opinion Rs.20/ - per Sq. Mtr. is correct assessment of the compensation. Therefore, I award Rs.20/ - per Sq. Mtr. as compensation. Even otherwise, Rs.20/ - was demanded by the claimants before the trial Court. It also appears from the facts of the case that the trial Court has awarded solatium, but looking to the directions given in the impugned judgment and award, interest on award of additional amount payable under Sections 23 (1) (a) of the Land Acquisition Act and solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act, no interest has been awarded. This is error apparent on the face of the record, looking the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (Constitutional Bench) in the case of Sundar Vs. Union of India reported 2001 (3) GLH 446, especially paras 23 and 26, they read as under: