STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. ARVINDKUMAR LAXMICHAND KHANDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal, which is filed by the State of Gujarat under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is directed against judgment and award dated 1/10/1997 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Surendranagar, in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1/91.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Amreli Irrigation Division, Amreli had proposed to the State Government to acquire lands of survey nos. 176/1, 176/2 and part of survey no.175 of village Noli for Sukhbhadar Irrigation Scheme. On receipt of proposal, necessary inquiries were made by the Government and the Government was satisfied that the above-referred to lands of village Noli were likely to be 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 Government Gazette on July 5, 1990. The respondent, who was owner of the lands, was served with notice under section 4(1) of the Act. On receipt of notice, he had filed objections against the proposed acquisition. After considering objections, Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer had forwarded his report to the State Government as contemplated by section 5A(2) of the Act. On consideration of the report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands which were specified in the notification issued under section 4(1) of the Act were needed for Sukhbhadar Irrigation Scheme. Therefore, declaration under section 6 of the Act was made which was published in Official Gazette on 22/11/1990. Thereafter the respondent was served with notice under section 9 of the Act. The respondent claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per Are. However, after considering the materials placed before him, the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the respondent at the rate of Rs. 100/per Are by award dated 27/02/1991. At the time when the award was made, neither the respondent was present, nor his Lawyer who represented him before the Land Acquisition Officer was present. No intimation as contemplated by section 12(2) of the Act was given by the Land Acquisition Officer. However,the acquiting body served a notice dated 12/02/1991 asking the respondent to collect the amount of compensation offered by the Collector. That notice was received by the respondent on 19/03/1991. On receipt of the notice, the respondent felt that the offer of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. He, therefore, made an application dated 8/04/1991 requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court for the purpose of determination of compensation. Accordingly, reference was made to the District Court, Surendranagar, which was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 1/91. In the reference application, the respondent pleaded that having regard to the market value of the surrounding lands as reflected in sale instances as well as in earlier award of the Court, compensation at the rate of Rs. 300.00 per Are ought to have been awarded to him. The reference application was contested by the appellant vide written statement Exh.20. In the written statement, it was averred that having regard to the sale instances and other materials placed on record, the Land Acquisition Officer was justified in offering compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs. 100.00 per Are and, therefore, the reference application should be dismissed. It was also pleaded in the reply that the reference was time barred and should be rejected as such. In view of the rival assertion made by the parties, necessary issues for determination were framed by the Reference Court. In support of his claim advanced in reference application, the respondent examined himself at Exh.55. He also examined witnesses, (1) Kanabhai Ramsingbhai at Exh.59, (2) Ambabhai Bhimabhai at Exh.60, (3) Valabhai Ganabhai at Exh.62, (4) Savsibhai Somabhai at Exh.64, (5) Gordhanbhai Jadavbhai at Exh.66, and (6) Bipinbhai Vasrambhai at Exh.67, to substantiate his claim that he was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 300/per Are. The respondent also produced earlier award of the Court at Exh.42 which was rendered in regard to part of survey no.175 of village Noli and wherein notification under section 4(1) of the Act was published in Government Gazette in the month of March, 1973 in order to justify his demand for higher compensation. The respondent also led oral evidence regarding cost of well situated in the acquired lands and pipelines which were laid therein. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced by the appellant to support the averments made in the written statement. On appreciation of evidence led by the respondent, the Reference Court held that the earlier award rendered in relation to part of Survey no.175 of village Noli, was comparable and having regard to time lag between the notifications issued under section 4(1) of the Act, the respondent was entitled to compensation after considering reasonable rise in price of the lands acquired. The Reference Court, therefore, deduced that the respondent was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 200/per Are. The Land Acquisition Officer had offered token compensation for waste land at the rate of Rs. 1.00 per Are. It was noticed by the Reference Court that in the waste land also, a well was situated and, therefore, Reference Court held that the respondent was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.00 per Are for waste lands. The Reference Court further deduced that the respondent was entitled to grant of Rs. 7500/for Well as well as pipelines. The Reference Court took into consideration the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) v. Shah Manilal Chandulal, 1996(2) GLR 626 and concluded that the reference was not time barred. In ultimate decision, the Reference Court held that the respondent was entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs.200.00 per Are for irrigated jirayat land and Rs. 5.00 per Are for waste land as well as Rs. 7500.00 towards Well and pipelines and was also entitled to statutory interest at the rate of 9% and additional compensation at the rate of 12% as well as 30% solatium on enhanced amount, by award dated 1/10/1997, which has given rise to the present appeal.

(3.) Ms. Katha Gajjar, learned A.G.P. submitted that the reference was time barred and, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. It was claimed that the earlier award of the Court produced at Exh.42 was not comparable at all and, therefore, the Reference Court was not justified in awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.200.00 per Are. What was stressed by the learned Counsel for the appellant was that when the compensation of the acquired lands was determined on the basis that the lands acquired were agricultural lands, the Reference Court was not justified in awarding estimated construction costs of the Well as well as pipelines separately and, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be suitably motified.