STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. MOHAN POPATBHAI

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 6/10/1993 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Porbandar,in Land Acqisition Reference Cases No. 11/88 to 30/88. The claimants had led common evidence in Land Acquisition Case No. 96/78. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.

(2.) The agricultural lands of village Fulrama which are subject matter of these appeals were placed under acquisition pursuant to publication of notification dated 2/11/1978 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 common award dated February 5, 1981 had offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per Are in some cases and also Rs. 70.00 per Are in other cases having regard to location and nature of respective lands of the claimants. 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. 11/88 to 30/88. 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. 625.00 per Are. The reference applications were contested by the present appellants vide common written statement Exh.15. 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) Puna Hamir at Exh.29, (2) Dhanji Naran at Exh.30, (3) Dahya Uka at Exh.31, (4) Jiava Gova at Exh.32, and (5) Khodabhai Kanabhai at Exh.33. On behalf of the appellants, no oral evidence was adduced at all. The claimants had produced a xerox copy of sale deed of survey no. 187 at Exh.26. It indicated that survey No. 187 of village Fulrama was sold on 17/02/1981 for a sum of Rs. 10,000.00. The claimants had also given particulars about the income derived by them from the sale of agricultural produces. On appreciation of evidence, reference court held that post notification sale transaction was not relevant for the purpose of ascertaining market value of the acquired lands in these cases. The reference Court took into consideration the figures of income stated by different witnesses and came to the conclusion that the market value of the acquired lands as on the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act was Rs. 350.00 per Are, by the impugned award which has given rise to present appeals.

(3.) The 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 that they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 350.00 per Are and, therefore, the impugned common award should be set aside. It was pleaded that the claimants failed to adduce reliable evidence regarding income derived by them from the agricultural produces and, therefore, the reference court should not have determined the market value of the acquired lands on yield basis. What was highlighted by the learned Counsel for the appellants was that the reference Court failed to deduct 50% towards cultivation expenditure after ascertaining yearly income from the sale of agricultural produces and, therefore, the appeals should be allowed. 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.