STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. DEVJIBHAI SAVABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these appeals, which are instituted under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, State of Gujarat has questioned legality and propriety of the judgment and award dated August 31, 1996 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Rajkot, in Land Reference Case No.26/87 and Land Reference Case No. 29/87 respectively.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Rajkot Irrigation Project made proposal to the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation), Rajkot to acquire the agricultural lands situated in villages of Taluka Paddhari including village Rangpur for the purpose of Nyari-II Irrigation Project. On receipt of proposal and other materials, the State Government issued notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on March 15, 1984. Thereafter notification under section 6 was published on April 11, 1985. After issuance of notification under section 9 of the Act, necessary notices were issued to the interested persons and an award was made under section 11 of the Act on November 10, 1986 by the Land Acquisition Officer. Under the award, Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 175.00 per Are for Bagayat land and Rs. 115.00 per Are for Jirayat land. He also fixed compensation of super-structures etc. as per the table annexed to the award. Feeling aggrieved by the said award, the respondents and others whose lands were acquired filed applications seeking reference to the Court for enhancement of compensation. Accordingly, references were made and they were numbered as Land Reference Cases No.21/87 to 29/87. Before Court the claimants claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 500/per Are for the lands acquired. They also claimed that the Land Acquisition Officer had undervalued super-structure, trees etc. The claimants produced documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their claims advanced before Court. On appreciation of evidence led by the parties, Reference Court held that the respondents in both these appeals were entitled to receive compensation at the rate of Rs. 336.00 per Are for their lands which were acquired. The Court further held that the respondents in both the appeals were also entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 10000.00 as compensation for the wells acquired with their lands, by judgment and award dated August 31, 1996, giving rise to present appeals.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals contended that having regard to the nature of evidence led by the claimants, the Court was not justified in awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 336.00 per Are for the lands acquired and, therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. It was claimed that while assessing compensation of the lands, learned Judge was not justified in separately assessing costs of the wells and, therefore, that part of the award by which compensation of Rs. 10,000.00 is ordered to be paid to the respondents in each appeal, deserves to be set aside. In support of the last submission, learned Counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of O.JANARDHAN REDDY AND OTHERS vs. SPL. DY. COLLECTOR, L.A. UNIT-IV, LMD, KARIMNAGAR, A.P. AND OTHERS, (1994)6 SCC 456.