STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. VIRAM RAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals, which are filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are directed against common judgment and award dated December 21, 1990, rendered by the learned Extra Assistant Judge, Junagadh at Porbandar in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No. 1/90 to 199/90 and, therefore, we propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Junagadh Irrigation Project, Junagadh Division had proposed to the State Government by a letter dated November 19, 1977 to acquire certain lands of village Miti, Taluka : Mangrol, District : Junagadh, as those lands were likely to be submerged due to construction of dam under Amipur Irrigation Scheme. On scrutiny of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that certain lands of village Miti, Taluka : Mangrol were likely to be submerged due to construction of the dam under Amipur Irrigation Scheme. Therefore, notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) was issued, which was published in Government Gazette on January 10, 1978. The land owners were served with notices under section 4 of the Act. They had filed objections against proposed acquisition. After considering the objections raised by the land owners,the Land Acquisition Officer had forwarded his report to the State Government as contemplated by section 5(A)(2) of the Act. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands specified in the notification which was issued under section 4(1) of the Act needed to be acquired, as they were to be submerged due to construction of dam under Amipur Irrigation Scheme. Accordingly, declaration under section 6 of the Act was made, which was published in the Official Gazette on December 26, 1978. The interested persons were thereafter served with notices under section 9 of the Act for determination of compensation. Having regard to the materials placed before him, the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated March 30, 1979 offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per Are for new tenure Jirayat dry lands, Rs. 30.00 per Are for new tenure Jirayat irrigated lands, Rs. 50.00 per Are for old tenure Jirayat dry lands, Rs. 75.00 per Are for old Jirayat irrigated lands. He also offered compensation to the claimants for waste lands at the rate of Rs. 1.00 per Are. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. They, therefore, made applications in writing and required the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court for the purpose of determination of compensation. Accordingly, references were made to the District Court, Junagadh, which were numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Cases No. 1/90 to 199/90. In the Reference Applications, the claimants pleaded that in view of the sale instances, which were produced by them before the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants should have been awarded higher compensation. They averred that they should have been awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 937.50 ps. per Are. It was claimed that an error was committed by the Land Acquisition Officer in treating certain lands as non-irrigated lands and in view of the huge amount which was spent by the claimants for developing the lands, sufficient compensation ought to have been paid to them.

(3.) In all the Land Acquisition Reference Cases, common reply was filed on behalf of the present appellant. In the reply, it was claimed that having regard to the nature of the lands acquired and income as well as potentiality,the offer of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer should not be treated as inadequate and the reference applications should be rejected. What was claimed in the reply was that the Land Acquisition Officer after taking into consideration the relevant materials including sale instances, had awarded compensation to the claimants which was just and reasonable and, therefore, the reference applications should not be entertained.