STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. PATEL TALSHI RAMJIBHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of filing these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the State of Gujarat has challenged legality of the common judgment and award dated 31/12/1987, rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Surendranagar, in Land Reference Cases No. 28/81 to 35/81 and Land Reference Case No.2/83. The lands belonging to the respondents were placed under acquisition pursuant to publication of preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, on 28/06/1973. We may state that Land Reference Case No. 28/81 was treated as the main case and the parties had led common evidence therein. As common questions of fact and law are involved in these appeals, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.

(2.) A proposal to acquire (1) open plots (2) common plots (3) private roads and (4) agricultural lands of village Dudharej, Taluka : Wadhwan, District : Surendranagar for the public purpose of 'Virangam-Okha-Porbandar Broad-guage Conversion Scheme', was received by the State Government. On scrutiny of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that open plots, common plots, agricultural lands, etc. of village Dudharej were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Accordingly, notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ('Act' for short) was issued, which was published in the Government Gazette on 28/06/1973. The lands to be acquired were specified in the said notification. The owners, whose lands were sought to be acquired, were served with notices under Section 4 of the Act. They had filed their objections against the proposed acquisition. After considering their objections, the Land Acquisition Officer had forwarded his report under Section 5A(2) of the Act to the State Government. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that agricultural lands as well as non-agricultural lands of village Dudharej, which was specified in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act were needed for the public purpose of 'Virangam-Okha-Porbandar Broad-guage Conversion Scheme'. Therefore, declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was published in official gazette on 2/05/1974. 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.15.00 per sq.yard i.e. Rs.17.98 ps per sq.mtr., but, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated 30/07/1980 offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs. 2.50 ps to Rs.5.00 per sq.mtr for agricultural and non-agricultural lands respectively. By the said award, the land owners were also offered compensation at the rate of Rs.1.00 per sq.mtr for private roads and common plots. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate. Therefore, they submitted applications in writing requiring the Land Acquisition Officer to refer the matters to the Court for the purpose of determination of compensation. Accordingly, references were made to the District court, Surendranagar, which were numbered as Land Reference Cases Nos.28/81 to 35/81 and Land Reference Case No. 2/83. In the reference applications, the claimants pleaded that the lands acquired were very valuable, and having regard to overall development, which had taken place near the acquired lands as well as potentiality of the agricultural lands for building purpose, they were entitled to higher compensation. In view of different nature of the acquired lands, the claimants had claimed different amounts of compensation ranging between Rs.10 and Rs.24 per sq.mtr before the Reference Court. The reference applications were contested by the present appellants vide written statement Exh.7. The reference applications were amended and amended reply was filed by the present appellants at Exh.15 In the reply, it was stated that those claimants, who had not laid any claim in response to service of notices under Section 9 of the Act, were not entitled to any enhanced compensation. It was pleaded that the Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration all the relevant factors before making the award and therefore the reference applications should be dismissed. Upon rival assertions made by the parties, necessary issues for determination were framed by the Reference Court at Exh. 8. In order to substantiate the claim advanced in the reference applications, the claimants examined (1) Vajubha Samantsang at Exh.16, (2) Manjulaben Parshotambhai at Exh.17, (3) Kanjibhai Popatbhai at Exh.20, (4) Rasagbhai Kaluji Parmar at Exh.26, (5) Rameshchandra Ghanshyamlal at Exh.27, (6) Govindbhai Shivabhai at Exh.28, (7) Ramji Lalji at Exh.29, (8) Mahant Kalyandas Gomtidasji at Exh.50, and (9) Saraswatidas Gomtidas at Exh.51. On behalf of the State Government, two witnesses were examined, namely, Valjibhai Dahyabhai Vaghela at Exh.58 and Parshotam Nagji at Exh.85. The claimants had also produced documentary evidence in support of their claim for higher compensation. On appreciation of evidence, the Reference Court held that the compensation offered by the Land Acquisition Officer for open plots, common plots, roads, agricultural lands and non-agricultural lands was inadequate. The Reference Court noticed that the lands under acquisition were very near to the northern boundary of the city of Surendranagar and huge development at the relevant time had taken place on the northern side of city of Surendranagar, with the result, there was high potential value of the lands under acquisition for development of Surendranagar city. Having regard to nature of acquisition, Reference Court was of the opinion that the lands under acquisition should be treated as big homogeneous parcel of the plots consisting of several big and small plots of lands and there was uniform potential value with respect to agricultural lands as well as non-agricultural lands under acquisition. In view of the overall development which had taken place near the acquired lands, Reference Court deduced that it was not necessary to resort to belting method while ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands. It was further held by the Reference Court that the claimants were entitled to same amount of compensation as may be determined for non-agricultural lands for common plots and roads also. After taking into consideration documentary evidence produced by the parties, Reference Court held that sale instances produced by the claimants in respect of Survey Nos. 663, 719, 580, 633 and 606 were relevant as well as comparable for the purpose of ascertaining the market value of the acquired lands. In ultimate decision, the Reference Court has held that the claimants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.12.00 per sq.mtr by the impugned common award, giving rise to the present appeals. We may state that the Reference Court has also granted statutory benefits available to the claimants under sections 23(1-A) and 34 of the Act as well as interest on amounts payable under sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act.

(3.) The learned Government Counsel submitted that the sale instances relating to Survey Nos. 663, 580, 719, 633 and 606 were not proved at all and, therefore, the same could not have been relied upon by the Reference Court while ascertaining market value of the acquired lands. It was submitted that development in the area nearby the acquired lands had taken place after the acquisition of the lands in the present case and, therefore, the said development could not have been made basis for the purpose of determining market value of the acquired lands. The learned Counsel vehemently submitted that there cannot be uniform potential value of the lands irrespective of fact whether the land acquired is agricultural land or non-agricultural land and, therefore, uniform determination of market value for agricultural as well as non-agricultural lands made by the Reference Court should be set aside. It was pleaded that the sale instances referred to by the witnesses of the State Government ought to have been relied upon for the purpose of determining market value of the acquired lands and the Reference Court was not justified in not considering the same at all. Learned Counsel vehemently contended that the Land Acquisition Officer had made his award on 30/07/1980 and, therefore, additional amount of compensation as envisaged under section 23(1-A) of the Act should not have been directed to be paid to the claimants. It was pleaded that direction to pay interest on the amounts payable to the claimants under sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) of the Act should not have been given in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Maharau Srawan Hatkar, Judgment Today, 1995(2) SC 583. The learned Counsel claimed that belting method ought to have been resorted to while determining market value of the acquired lands. What was stressed was that no cogent evidence was led by the claimants to establish that they were entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.12.00 per sq.mtr and, therefore, the impugned common award should be set aside.