STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MAKA MERABHAI RABARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, which are instituted 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 October 7, 1993 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Porbandar,in Land Acqisition Reference Cases No. 65/88 & 66/88. Both the above-referred to references arose out of the common award made by the Land Acquisition Officer on 16/09/1986. The lands in question were placed under acquisition pursuant to publication of notification on 5/05/1983, which was issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.

(2.) The State Government had received a proposal to acquire agricultural lands of village Khageshri which belonged to the respondents for public purpose of Kalindi Irrigation Scheme. On scrutiny of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands belonging to the respondents were needed for the said public purpose. Accordingly, notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) was issued, which was published in the Official Gazette on 5/05/1983. The objections raised by the respondents against the proposed acquisition were considered by the Land Acquisition Officer and after considering the same, he had forwarded a report as contemplated by section 5A(2) of the Act. On consideration of the said report, State Government was satisfied that the lands of the respondents which were specified in the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act were needed for public purpose of Kalindi Irrigation Scheme. Accordingly, declaration under section 6 of the Act was made, which was published in Government Gazette on July 29, 1984. Thereafter the respondents were 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 16/09/1986 offered compensation to the respondents at the rate of Rs. 70.00 per Are. The respondents were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Therefore, they made applications in writing requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court for determination of compensation. Accordingly, references were made to the District Court, Junagadh, which were numbered as Land Reference Cases No. 65/88 & 66/88. In the reference applications, the respondents claimed that having regard to the prevailing price of the agricultural lands situated nearby as well as income derived by them from the sale of agricultural produces, they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 800.00 per Are. The reference applications were contested by the present appellants vide common written statement Exh.16. In the reply, it was pleaded by the appellants that the market price was properly determined by the Land Acquisition Officer and as compensation offered to the claimants was just and adequate, reference applications should be dismissed. Upon rival assertions of the parties, necessary issues for determination were raised by the reference court. In order to substantiate the claim advanced in the reference application, the claimants had examined, (1) Makabhai Morabhai at Exh.29 and (2) Goganbhai Visabhai at Exh.30. The witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants had produced true certified copy of Village Form 7/12 to establish that the lands which were acquired had facility of well and the claimants used to fetch water from the well and also used to take two crops in a year. It may be mentioned that on behalf of the appellants no one was examined to substantiate the assertions made in the written statement. On appreciation of evidence, the reference court held that reliable sale instances were not available for determination of compensation. The reference Courst relied upon oral evidence led by the claimants to determine compensation of the acquired lands on the basis of yield. The reference Court referred to the oral depositions of witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants and held that the net income derived by the claimants from the sale of agricultural produces was Rs. 1600/- per bigha. The reference Court was of the opinion that having regard to the facts of the case, multiplier of 12.5 was required to be applied in order to ascertain the net income per bigha and calculated that the net income per bigha was Rs. 20,000.00. Thereafter the reference Court divided the said figure by 16 in order to ascertain the market value of the acquired lands per Are. The reference Court noted that the claimants had tendency to exaggerate the income derived from the lands and ultimately held that the market value of the acquired lands on the date of notification under section 4(1) of the Act was Rs.400.00 per Are by common award dated 7/10/1993, giving rise to these appeals.

(3.) Mr. M.R.Raval, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was fair as well as adequate and, therefore, additional amount of compensation should not have been awarded by the reference court. It was stressed that no cogent and reliable evidence was led by the claimants to establish income derived by them from the sale of agricultural produces and, therefore, yield method should not have been adopted by the reference court for the purpose of ascertaining market value of the acquired land. It was asserted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the method of arriving at net income derived from sale of crops was not only illegal, but not warranted by any of the methods known to law for the purpose of ascertaining market value of the acquired lands and, therefore, common award should be set aside. It was further stressed that in view of the judgments of the Supreme Court holding that 50% should be deducted towards cultivation expenses and multiplier of more than ten should not be adopted while ascertaining market value of the acquired lands on yield basis, the appeals filed by the State Government and another should be accepted. It was also stressed on behalf of the appellants that the claimants did not establish before the reference court that they were deriving particular income from sale of agricultural produces and, therefore, reference Court ought to have dismissed the reference applications. In the alternative, the learned Counsel vehemently submitted that the claimants are not entitled to solatium on additional amount of compensation payable under section 23(1-A) of the Act and, therefore, the direction given by the reference Court to pay solatium on additional amount of compensation payable under section 23(1-A) of the Act also deserves to be set aside.