STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KHIMA RAMDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These 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 8/09/1993 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Porbandar,in Land Acqisition Reference Cases No. 61/89 to 89/89. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.

(2.) The lands which are subject matter of these appeals were placed under acquisition pursuant to publication of notification on 22/12/1977 which was issued under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short), as the lands were needed for public purpose of Amipur Irrigation Scheme. After hearing the claimants, the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 30/03/1978 had offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per Are in some cases and also at the rate of Rs. 75/per Are in other cases having regard to location of the lands acquired. The claimants were of the opinion that offer of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was not adequate and, therefore, by making applications in writing, they had required the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matters to the Court for determination of compensation. Accordingly, references were made to the District Court, Junagadh, which were numbered as Land Reference Cases No. 61/89 to 89/89. In the reference applications it was claimed by the claimants that having regard to the prevailing market price of the lands situated nearby as well as income derived from 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.17. 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 applications, the claimants had examined; (1) Nathabhai Ukardabhai at Exh.27, (2) Karsanbhai Nathabhai at Exh.28, (3) Jethabhai Parbatbhai at Exh.29, (4) Sinabhai Virambhai at Exh.30, (5) Ramabhai Narsibhai at Exh.31, (6) Virabhai Malde at Exh.32, (7) Sanganbhai Bodabhai at Exh.33, and (8) Vikrambhai Rambhai at Exh.40. 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, reference court held that sale instances were not available for determination of the compensation. The reference court relied upon the oral evidence led by the claimants to determine compensation of the acquired lands on the basis of yield. One of the witnesses, viz. Vikrambhai Rambhai, who was examined at Exh.40 was the Sarpanch of the village and his evidence was accepted and relied upon with the evidence of other witnesses examined in the case while determining market value of acquired lands on yield basis. The reference court referred to the oral depositions of seven witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants for the purpose of ascertaining income derived by the claimants from the sale of agricultural produces and held that the total of the different figures of income stated by seven witnesses was Rs. 11,300/-. The reference court thereafter divided the said figure by seven and held that the average annual yield per Bigha was Rs. 1614.00. The reference court further deducted expenditure of cultivation and held that the net average annual yield per Bigha was Rs. 1000.00 and after adopting multiplier of 12.5, further calculated that the net market value of the acquired lands per Bigha was Rs. 12,500.00. That figure was again divided by 16 in order to ascertain market value of the acquired lands per Are and the reference court held that the market value per Are would come to Rs. 780.00. The reference court noticed 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/per Are, by common award dated 8/09/1993, giving rise to present 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 lands. It was asserted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the method of totalling different figures of income stated by the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants and then dividing the said figure by number of witnesses, adopted by the reference court for the purpose of ascertaining market value of the acquired lands, 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, references ought to have been dismissed by the reference court. In the alternative, the learned Counsel vehemently submitted that the claimants are not entitled to additional compensation under section 23(1-A) of the Act and, therefore, the award made in favour of the claimants under section 23(1-A) of the Act should be set aside, as the Land Acquisition Officer had made award prior to the coming into force of Act 68 of 1994 by which section 23(1-A) of the Act was inserted in the statute book. It was also pleaded that the claimants were also 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.