GUJARAT STATE Vs. VAJSI GIGA FOR GIGA PUNJA

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 4/09/1993 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Porbandar,in Land Acqisition Reference Cases No. 53/89 to 60/89. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.

(2.) Pursuant to a proposal received by the State Government to acquire agricultural lands of village Kadegi, Taluka : Mangrol, District : Junagadh, necessary inquiries were made by the State Government and the State Government was satisfied that the agricultural lands of village Kadegi were likely to be needed for public purpose of Amipur Irrigation Scheme. Therefore, 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 1/12/1977. After hearing the objections raised by the land owners, a report was forwarded to the State Government by the Deputy Collector and Land Acquisition Officer, Junagadh under section 5A(2) of the Act. On consideration of the said report, State Government was satisfied that the lands specified in the notification published under section 4(1) of the Act were needed for public purpose of Amipur Irrigation Scheme. Accordingly, declaration under section 6 of the Act was made which was published in Official Gazette on 15/02/1978. 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 of Rs. 800.00 per Are. Having regard to the materials placed before him, the Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated March 27, 1978 offered compensation to the claimants in some cases at the rate of Rs. 75.00 per Are and in other cases at the rate of Rs. 50.00 per Are and also at the rate of Rs.20/or Rs. 30.00 per Are having regard to fertility, location etc. of the acquired lands. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and therefore, by making applications in writing, they 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. 53/89 to 60/89. 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.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) Vajsi Giga at Exh.24, (2) Rana Teba at Exh.25, (3) Bhima Vasa at Exh.26, (4) Deva Vasa at Exh.27, (5) Jiva Vasa at Exh.28, (6) Rama Veja at Exh.29, (7) Karsan Uga at Exh.30, and (8) Ramdebhai Karsanbhai at Exh.31. They had also produced sale instances at Exhs. 20, 21 & 21. 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 the sale deeds produced by the claimants indicated that the price of the lands situated nearby was Rs. 800.00 per Are on or about the time of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act, but did not rely upon the sale deeds for the purpose of determining market value of the acquired lands. The reference Court relied upon the oral evidence led by the claimants to determine compensation of the acquired lands on the basis of yield. The witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants had deposed about fertility of lands as well as given particulars of the crops which were being raised by the claimants on the acquired lands. The witnesses had also deposed regarding quantity of the crops raised as well as price of crops on or about the time of publication of notification under section 4 of the Act. The reference Court noticed that the average yield of the acquired lands per bigha was Rs. 2108.00 and if 1/3rd amount towards cultivation expenses was deducted, the net income would be Rs. 1400.00 per bigha. The reference Court was of the opinion that multiplier of 12.5 should be applied to the facts of the present cases and deduced that the market value of the acquired lands per Are would be Rs. 1093.75 ps. However, the reference Court noticed that exaggeration in the net income was made by the claimants and, therefore, in ultimate analysis held that the claimants were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 400/per Are by impugned common award dated September 4, 1993, giving rise to present appeals.

(3.) 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 arriving at the net income from the sale of agricultural produces 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, impugned 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 applications 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.