GEB Vs. HEIRS OF MAYARAM SUKHRAM, ANANDRAM MAYARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals, 35 in number, arise out of the two common awards dated 31.12.2001 and 20.2.2002 passed by the Second Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as "the Reference Court"). First Appeal Nos.1004 of 2002 to 1008 of 2002 arise out of the common award dated 20.2.2002 passed by the Reference Court in LAR Case Nos.68 of 190 to 73 of 1990 (First Appeal No.1003 of 2003 arising out of the said common award has already been disposed of earlier by the Coordinate Bench vide the order dated 29.7.2008). First Appeal No.175 of 2003, and First Appeal Nos.1212 of 2002 to 1240 of 2002 arise out of the common award dated 31.12.2001 passed by the Reference Court in LAR Case Nos.33 of 1990 to 49 of 1990 and Nos.52 of 1990 to 64 of 1990.

(2.) Both the common awards pertain to the lands in question situated at Villages Chorania and Bhalgamda, Taluka Limbdi, District Surendranagar, which were acquired by the Government for the construction of 400 K.V. Substation for the Gujarat Electricity Board. The Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") was published in the Government Gazette on 14.4.1988 and in the newspapers on 15.3.1988 and 19.3.1988. The Notification under Section 6 of the said Act was published in the Government Gazette on 4.6.1989 and in the newspapers on 13.3.1989 and 20.3.1989. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed the award on 4.1990 and had subsequently revised the same on 26.6.1990 in Case No.10 of 1987 in respect of the lands bearing Survey Nos.230 and 231 under Section 31(2) of the said Act.

(3.) The claimants being aggrieved by the said award, had sought Reference under Section 18 of the said Act, and therefore, all the cases were referred to the Reference Court, in respect of the lands covered under Schedule-C of the said award dated 2.4.1990 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. It appears that the Reference Court had initially divided the said cases into two groups. First Group pertained to the LAR Case Nos.34 of 1990 to 64 of 1990 and the Second Group pertained to the LAR Case Nos.33 of 1990 and 68 of 1990 to 73 of 1990. It further appears that the LAR Cases of first group were consolidated in LAR Case No.34 of 1990 as per the order passed by the Reference Court on 15.2001 below Exh.28 and the LAR Cases of second group were consolidated in LAR No.33 of 1990 as per the order passed on 16.7.1996 below Exh.24. Thereafter, both the groups were consolidated as per the order passed on 20.9.2001 below Exh.68 and common evidence was permitted to be adduced by the respective parties. It further appears that subsequently the Reference Court, having found that the facts and circumstances in respect of LAR Case Nos.68 of 1990 to 73 of 1990 from the second group and LAR Case Nos.50 of 1990 and 51 of 1990 from the first group were different from the other cases, it ordered to separate the said cases from the rest of the cases. Accordingly, LAR Case Nos.33 of 1990 to 49 of 1990 and 52 of 1990 to 64 of 1990 were disposed of by the common award dated 31.12.2001, whereas the LAR Case Nos.68 of 1990 to 73 of 1990 were disposed of by separate common award dated 20.2.2002 (it may be noted that there is no reference of LAR Case Nos.50 of 1990 and 51 of 1990 in the award dated 20.2.2002, though the said two cases were clubbed with the LAR Case No.68 of 1990 to 73 of 1990).