EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. MANIBEN NATHABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals are ordered to be admitted. Ms. Megha Jani, learned Counsel waives service of notice on behalf of the claimant in each appeal. M/s. H.L.Jani & M.R.Raval, learned Assistant Government Pleaders waive service of notice on behalf of respondent no.2 i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Unit No.1, Baroda. At the joint request of learned advocate appearing for the parties, the appeals are taken-up for final hearing today.

(2.) All these appeals which are filed 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 May 1. 1997, rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No. 206/89 to 218/89 and, therefore, we propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common award.

(3.) A proposal to acquire agricultural landsof village Ujeti, Taluka : Halol, District : Panchmahals for the purpose of constructing main canal under Narmada Project was received by the State Government from Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Main Canal, Division-V, Baroda. On scrutiny of the said proposal, State Government was satisfied that agricultural lands of village Ujeti were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, notification under section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) was issued which was published in Official Gazette on 22/05/1986. The owners of the lands were thereafter served with notices under section 4 of the Act. The owners had filed objections against the proposed acquisition. After considering their objections, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Narmada Unit No.1 had forwarded his report to the State Government as contemplated by section 5A(2) of the Act. On consideration of the said report, State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Ujeti which were specified in the notification under section 4(1) of the Act were needed for public purpose of constructing main canal under Narmada Project. Under the circumstances, declaration under section 6 of the Act was made, which was published in Official Gazette on 4/07/1987. The interested persons were thereafter served with notices under sections 9(3) and 9(4) of the act for determination of compensation. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 825.00 per Are i.e. Rs. 8.25 ps. per sq.mt. The Land Acquisition Officer on consideration of materials placed before him, offered compensation at the rate of Rs. 90.00 per Are i.e. Rs. 0.90 ps per sq.mt. The claimants were dissatisfied with the offer of compensation made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and, therefore, they made applications in writing requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matter to the Court for the purpose of determination of compensation. Accordingly, references were made tothe District Court, Panchmahals at Godhra, which were numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Cases No. 206/89 to 218/89. In the reference applications,the claimants pleaded that their acquired lands were very fertile and quality of the lands being very rich, they were earning good income from the sale of agriculture produces and, therefore, they should be awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 825/per Are. It was claimed in the applications that the Special land Acquisition Officer had not taken into consideration relevant factors before determining market value of the acquired lands and the claimants should be awarded higher compensation. The reference applications were contested bythe appellant as well as respondent no.2 vide written statement Exh.10. In the reply, it was claimed that Special land Acquisition Officer had determined market value of the acquired lands after taking into consideration the sale instances of last five years and, therefore, offer of compensation being just, reference applications should be dismissed. It was also averred that determination of compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was just as well as proper and no higher compensation should be awarded to the claimants. In view of the rival assertions made by the parties, necessary issues for determination were raised by the reference court. On behalf of the claimants, witness Dolatsinh Purshottamsinh, who was claimant in Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 210/89, was examined at Exh.16. The said witness statedin his deposition that the lands acquired were fertile as well as rich in quality and the claimants were deriving substantial income from the sale of agricultural produces. The witness claimed that the lands of village Garial and village Rameshara were similar to the lands of village Ujeti and the quality of the lands was almost same. He further deposed that the lands of village Garial andvillage Rameshara were situated at a distance of 3 to 3 1/2 K.Ms. away from village Ujeti. During the course of examination, the said witness produced previous award of the Court renderedin respect of lands of village Garial at Exh.17, which indicated that Court had determined market value of the lands of village Garial at the rate of Rs.11.75 ps. per sq.mt. as on 10/05/1984, which was the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. The witness further produced judgment of the High Court at Exh.18 which showed that the appeal filed by the State Government against award of compensation in respect of lands of village Garial was dismissed. The said witness also produced another award of the Reference Court at Exh.40, which was rendered in respect of lands of village Rameshara. That award indicated that the lands of village Rameshara were valued at Rs. 11.30 ps. per sq.mt. as on 11/01/1985, which was the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act. However, the record indicated that the State Government had preferred appeal against the award rendered in respect of lands of village Rameshara before the High Court and the High Court had reduced market value of land to Rs. 8.00 per sq.mt. Neither oral, nor documentary evidence was led either by the present appellant or by respondent no.2 to substantiate the claim advanced in the written statement Exh.10. On consideration of the evidence led by the claimants, the reference court concluded that previous awards produced at Exhs. 17 & 40 were comparable as well as relevant for the purpose of determining market value of the lands acquired in the present case, and placing reliance on the judgment of the High Court, the reference court has determined market value of the lands acquired in the present case at the rate of Rs. 8.00 per sq.mt. by common award, giving rise to present appeals.