STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ARVINDKUMAR RAYCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of filing these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the State of Gujarat challenged legality of the common judgment and award dated 31/12/1987, rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Surendranagar, in Land Reference Cases Nos. 23 of 1984 to 32 of 1984. Land Reference Case No. 23/84 was treated as main case and the parties had led common evidence therein. The lands belonging to the respondents were placed under acquisition pursuant to publication of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 7/04/1977. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.

(2.) A proposal to acquire (1) open plots (2) common plots and (3) private roads situated at village Dudharej, Taluka : Wadhwan, District : Surendranagar, for the public purpose of 'Virangam-Okha-Porbandar Broad-guage Conversion Scheme', was received by the State Government. On scrutiny of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that non-agricultural lands of village Dudharej were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Accordingly, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) was issued, which was published in the Government Gazette on 7/04/1977. The lands to be acquired were specified in the said notification. The owners, whose land were proposed to be acquired, were served with notices under Section 4 of the Act. They had filed their objections against the proposed acquisition. After considering their objections, the Land Acquisition Officer had forwarded his report to the State Government as contemplated by Section 5A(2) of the Act. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that non-agricultural lands situated in the sim of village Dudharej, which were specified in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act were needed for the public purpose of 'Virangam-Okha-Porbandar Broad-guage Conversion Scheme'. Therefore, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was published in official gazette on 10/03/1980. The interested persons were thereafter served with notices under Section 9 of the Act for determination of compensation. The claimants appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate ranging between Rs.15.00 per sq.mt. to Rs. 35.00 per sq.mt. Having regard to the materials placed before him, the Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated February 27, 1984, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate ranging between Rs.3.50 ps. to Rs.8.50 ps. per sq.mtr. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Therefore, they submitted applications in writing requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matters to the Court for the purpose of determination of compensation. Accordingly, references were made to the District court, Surendranagar, which were numbered as Land Reference Cases Nos.23 of 1984 to 32 of 1984. In the reference applications, the claimants pleaded that the lands acquired were very valuable, and having regard to overall development, which had taken place near the acquired lands as well as potentiality of the non-agricultural lands for building purpose, they were entitled to higher compensation. The claimants by submitting reference applications prayed the Court to award compensation to them at the rate ranging between Rs. 15.00 per sq.mt. to RS. 35.00 per sq.mt. having regard to different qualities and nature of the lands acquired. The reference applications were contested by the present appellant vide written statement Exh.17. In the reply, it was pleaded that those claimants, who had not laid any claim in response to service of notices under Section 9 of the Act, were not entitled to any enhanced compensation. It was averred that the Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration all the relevant factors before making the award and therefore the reference applications should be dismissed. Upon rival assertions made by the parties, necessary issues for determination were raised by the Reference Court at Exh.18. In order to substantiate their claim advanced in the reference applications, the claimants examined (1) Shah Nikhilkumar Vadilal at Exh.22, (2) Kalyandasji Gomtidasji atExh.34, (3) Gajendrasinh Merubha at Exh. 42, (4) Kulubha Jitsinhji at Exh.43, (5) Mathurdas Jagjivandas atExh.44, (6) Paras Kantilal Shah at Exh.46, (7) Arvindbhai Raychandbhai atExh.67, and (8) Ranchhodbhai Pitamberbhai at Exh.68. On behalf of the State Government, two witnesses were examined, namely, Parshottam Nagjibhai at Exh.69 and Valjibhai Dahyabhai Vaghela at Exh.73. The claimants had also produced documentary evidence in support of their claim for higher compensation. On appreciation of evidence, the Reference Court held that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer for non-agricultural lands was inadequate. The Reference Court noticed that the lands under acquisition were very near to the northern boundary of the city of Surendranagar and huge development had taken place on the northern side of city of Surendranagar, with the result, there was high potential value of the lands under acquisition for development of the Surendranagar city. Having regard to nature of acquisition, the Reference Court was of the opinion that the lands under acquisition should be treated as a big homogeneous parcel of the plots consisting of several big and small plots of lands and there was uniform potential value with respect to non-agricultural lands under acquisition. In view of the overall development which had taken place near the acquired lands, the Reference Court deduced that it was not necessary to resort to belting method while ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands. It was further held by the Reference Court that the claimants were entitled to same amount of compensation as may be determined for non-agricultural lands, for common plots and roads also. After taking into consideration documentary evidence produced by the parties, the Reference Court held that sale instances produced by the claimants in respect of Survey Nos. 618, Plot No.24 of Survey no.719, survey no.791 of which old number was 663, 604, part of survey no.791, survey nos. 606, 719, 583, 584, 1220, 581 and 580 were relevant as well as comparable for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands. In ultimate decision, the Reference Court has held that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.13.00 per sq.mtr. by the impugned common award, which has given rise to the present appeals. We may state that the Reference Court has also awarded additional amount of compensation as envisaged under section 23(1-A) of the Act as well as interest on solatium payable to the claimants under section 23(2) of the Act.

(3.) The learned Government Counsel submitted that the sale instances referred to by the claimants were not proved at all as required by law and, therefore, the same could not have been made basis by the Reference Court for ascertaining market value of the acquired lands. It was pleaded that development in the nearby area had taken place after the acquisition of the lands in the present case and, therefore, the said development could not have been relied on for the purpose of determining market value of the acquired lands. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that there cannot be uniform potential value of the lands acquired and, therefore, uniform determination of market value for non-agricultural lands made by the Reference Court should be set aside. It was claimed that the sale instances referred to by the witnesses of the State Government ought to have been relied upon for the purpose of determining market value of the acquired lands. What was stressed was that the possession of the acquired lands was taken on 7/10/1977 and, therefore, direction to pay additional amount of compensation as envisaged from publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act till the date of award should not have been given by the Reference Court. The learned Counsel for the appellant further contended that the direction to pay interest on amount payable to the claimants under sections 23(1-A) & 23(2) of the Act should not have been given in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, Judgment Today, 1995(2) S.C. 583 and, therefore, those directions should be set aside. It was claimed that having regard to the nature of acquisition, belting method ought to have been adopted and uniform potential value should not have been determined for all the acquired lands. What was stressed was that no cogent evidence was led by the claimants to establish that they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.13.00 per sq.mtr and, therefore, the impugned common award should be set aside.