SPL LAQ OFFICER Vs. PRUTHVISINH GOPALSINH ZALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 18. 07. 2002 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 916/1998 to 925/1998 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, O. N. G. C. , Mehsana initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [for short, "the Act"] for the purpose of acquiring the lands situated at Village Sadhutla, Taluka Bechraji, District Mehsana, belonging to the respondents - claimants for temporary occupation. After following due procedure, the said lands were acquired vide order dated 02. 05. 1998 passed in L. A. Q. Case No. 31 of 1994. 2. 2 However, being dissatisfied by the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, References were preferred u/s. 35 (3) of the Act, which came to be numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 916/1998 to 925/1998. The said Cases were taken up for hearing by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Mehsana and after hearing learned counsel for both the sides, the learned Judge partly allowed the said References. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant - Corporation has approached this Court by way of these Appeals.

(3.) MR. R. R. Marshall learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant - Corporation has contented that though certain documents were produced on record vide Exhibit - 20, the same were not considered by the Court below. Apart from that the Court below has also not appreciated the contention raised by the appellant - Corporation that since the respondents - claimants had not produced on record the copy of the decision Exhibit - 15 heavily relied upon by them, the same should not be considered by the reference Court. However, the reference Court has not dealt with the aforesaid aspect and has passed the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside.