LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. PATEL PARTHIBHAI LAXMANBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned AGP Mr. Neeraj Soni for appellant Land Acquisitioln Officer, Palanpur, District Banaskantha and learned Advocate Mr. Shah for learned Advocate Mr. Tushar Mehta and learned Advocate Mr. Vipul Modi for respective respondents.

(2.) THROUGH this appeal, appellant has challenged judgment given by the Reference Court in LR Case NO. 6 of 1984 Exh. 43 dated 31st July, 1995 wherein the Reference Court has partly allowed reference and it has been held that the applicants are entitled to receive the compensation at the rate of Rs. 5. 00 per square meter for the acquired land ad measuring 1 H- 63 Are-83 sq. mtrs. deducting received amount of award Rs. 8463. 50 ps. with running interest at 12 per cent per annum from date of publication of sec. 4 notification 14. 5. 81 till the date of award and for the subsequent years, claimants shall be entitled to realize the interest over the afore mentioned accumulated amount at the rate of 15 per cent per annum till recovery. It has also been held that the applicants shall be entitled to solatium amount at the rate of 30 per cent over the principal land price of the acquired land and shall also be entitled to costs.

(3.) LEARNED AGP Mr. Niraj Soni for appellant submitted that the lands were acquired for the purpose of Chitrasani Check Dam situated in Taluka Palanpur, District Banaskantha and notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 6th January, 1982 and thereafter, section 6 notification was published in the Gazette on 1st December, 1983. After taking into consideration various factors, Land Acquisition Officer has passed award on 17th February, 1984 awarding Rs. 3. 00 per square meter and thereafter, reference has been made and reference court has by award dated 31st July, 1995, enhanced amount from Rs. 3. 00 to Rs. 5. 00 per square meter. Learned AGP Mr. Soni submitted that the Reference Court has not assigned reason for increasing this amount from Rs. 3. 00 to Rs. 5. 00 per square meter. As per his submission, Reference Court has wrongly interpreted judgment in case of Land Acquisition Officer, Elurn etc. vs. Smt. Jasti Rohini and Anr. , 1995 (2) SC 339 and decision of apex court in case of State of Haryana vs. Gurcharan Singh and etc. , 1995 (2) SC 345 without properly appreciating ratio laid down by apex court in those decisions. He submitted that the Reference Court has also committed an error in awarding solatium amount at the rate of 30 per cent over the principal amount of land price of acquired land. He submitted that the reference court has also committed an error in awarding interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act till the date of award and thereafter 15 per cent till the date of recovery. He referred to the discussion made by the reference court in para 8 of award and submitted that it ought to have been appreciated by reference court that fertility of the acquired land was not so much as exaggerated on oath since the soil was sandy and it was not possible to take precious crop or cash crop. He further submitted that the reference court ought to have appreciated that looking to the other sale transactions of adjacent land, amount asked for by way of reasonable amount of compensation is much higher and hence it ought to have been appreciated. He also submitted that the reference court has also committed gross error in not appreciating challenge of the appellant as regards validity of the amount. He submitted that the appellant had examined Mr. Halani on oath at Exh. 28 before the reference court who was the then Deputy Collector Palanpur specially appointed as Land Acquisition Officer who has also challenged veracity of the version of the applicant's side contending inter alia that the amount of compensation claimed by applicants side is not reasonable but exaggerated one and therefore, he should not be awarded. He also submitted that the reference court has also committed an error in not appreciating submission made before it by appellant that on account of construction of said dam, applicant's side held more water than they had in the past and further that conservation of humidity in sub soil has increased and on account of that, applicants have started taking peddy crop which was not possible in past and hence this surplus land is remaining useless and turned unproductive is not true and, therefore, that version of applicant side to that effect is not based upon reality of facts and, therefore, their claim is not genuine and hence they are not entitled to claim asked for. He referred to para 13 of award and submitted that in said para, reference court has, after going through relevant revenue record of 7/12 relating to acquired land S. No. 200 in possession of present applicant Parthibhai, it was observed that there is no any clear cogent evidence on the form of documents to suggest cultivation of acquired land through out the year and in light of those facts relating to high productivity rate of the crops being grown in the acquired land on applicants side are not hold truth and consequently, the assessment and consideration recorded by Land Acquisition Officer at the time of passing award that the acquired land is of the nature of Jirayat land without facility of irrigation and corroborated in the oral testimony on oath at Exh. 28 stands to reason and, therefore, in light of such observation made by reference court in para 13, reference court has committed error in passing award. In support of his submissions, learned AGP Mr. Soni has placed reliance on the decision in case of KANWAR SINGH AND OTHERS Versus UNION OF INDIA (1998) 8 SCC 136 and submitted that in the said decision, it was held that though bona fide sale transactions showing price paid on or near date of S. 4 notification for similar land with similar advantages well recognized, however, unless proved otherwise, situation and potentiality of land situated in two different villages would be different. He relied upon the Head Note A and B as under: a. Land Acquisition and Requisition Land Acquisition Act, 1894 S. 23 Market value of land Comparable sale or award method Relevance of price fetched in adjoining villages Held, though bona fide sale transactions showing price paid on or near date of S. 4 notification for similar land with similar advantages well recognized, however, unless proved otherwise, situation and potentiality of land situated in two different villages would be different. Held, on facts, High Court finding unassailable that the situation and potentiality of land in the adjoining villages were higher compensation was paid, was different. B. Land Acquisition and Requisition Land Acquisition Act S. 23 Market value Comparable sale or award method Final judgments in respect of comparable sales cannot be relied upon if they had been pursued on wrong point of law or inactively or disinterestedly pursued owing to negligence or connivance. "