Dismissed

Special Land Acq. Officer v. Aminaben Wd/O Karimbhai Bhikhabhai Mumtazben

Gujarat HC7 Feb 2012FA/3876/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order dismisses First Appeals filed against a Reference Court's award of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The bench held that there is no reason to interfere as findings were consistent with previous awards for the same village, unsupported evidence on compensation inadequacy, and statutory price rise adjustments were accounted for.

What did the court decide?

First Appeals No. 3876 of 2010, 3881 of 2010, 3882 of 2010, and 3885 of 2010 are dismissed.

Special Land Acq. Officer Vs Aminaben Wd/O Karimbhai… — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2012)

¶1

FA/3876/2010

¶2

1/5

¶3

JUDGMENT

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶5

FIRST APPEAL No. 3876 of 2010 With FIRST APPEAL No. 3881 of 2010 With FIRST APPEAL No. 3882 of 2010 With FIRST APPEAL No. 3885 of 2010

¶6

For Approval and Signature:

¶7

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶8

=========================================

¶9

1^{Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be}

¶10

allowed to see the judgment ?

¶11

2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?

¶12

3^{Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy} of the judgment ?

¶13

Whether this case involves a substantial question

¶14

4 of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ?

¶15

5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?

¶16

=========================================

¶17

SPECIAL LAND ACQ. OFFICER & 2 Versus

¶18

AMINABEN WD/O KARIMBHAI BHIKHABHAI MUMTAZBEN

¶19

=========================================

¶20

Appearance :

¶21

MR PP BANAJI ADDL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Appellants MR KM SHETH for Respondent

¶22

=========================================

¶23

CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA

¶24

Date : 07/02/2012

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

FA/3876/2010

¶27

2/5

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

[1] The present First Appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the impugned judgment and award passed in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.282 to 290 of 2005 dated 06.07.2009 by the Reference Court [learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court], Bharuch on the grounds mentioned in the memo of First Appeals.

¶30

[2] The facts of the case briefly stated are that the land of the original claimants situated in the sim of Village Occhan, Bharuch was acquired for the public purpose of Ochhan Pahaj Badalpura Minor Canal Vishakha Canal under the Narmada Project. The notifications under section 4 & 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 were published on 05.04.2004 and 07.07.2004 respectively. After following due procedure, the Special Land Acquisition Officer by his award dated 16.11.2004 awarded compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.6.30 per Sq.Mtrs. Against the said award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the original claimant filed Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Reference Court [Court of Additional District Judge, Bharuch] being Land Reference Cases No.280 of 2005 to 290 of 2005 along with others. The Reference Court passed the impugned award, which has been assailed in the aforesaid First Appeals on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeals.

¶31

[3] Heard learned AGP Mr.P.P. Banaji for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr.K.M. Sheth for the respondent.

¶32

[4] Learned AGP Mr.P. P. Banaji has submitted that the Reference Court ought to have seen that the claimants have failed to prove that the compensation awarded by the special land acquisition officer is inadequate and not proper. He further submitted that the learned Judge ought not to have placed much reliance upon the previous award of the another land but ought to have placed reliance upon the comparable sale instance of the same village or near vicinity. Learned

¶33

FA/3876/2010

¶34

3/5

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

AGP Mr.Banaji has submitted that the Reference Court has also failed to appreciate that quality and fertility of the land is also a factor to be considered, which has not been considered. Similarly it has been contended that the learned Judge ought to have taken into consideration the comparable sale instance and ought not to have followed the previous award.

¶37

[5] Learned counsel, Mr.K. M. Sheth has referred to the papers and submitted that in the villages including the village Muler and other villages of the vicinity like Kesswan as well as Ochhan, the lands have been acquired. He submitted that considering the situation of the land as well as quality and fertility based on yield of the land, this Court in a similar case has passed an order dismissing the First Appeal. For that purpose, learned advocate for the respondents has referred to the order passed by this Court (Coram : K.S. Jhaveri, J.) in First Appeal No.2440/2011 dated 25.08.2011 and also the order passed in First Appeal No.44/2012 dated 17.01.2012. The learned advocate for the respondents submitted that in that case also, the State had challenged the order passed by the Reference Court but the said Appeal has not been entertained and the award of compensation to the tune of Rs.53.50 per Sq.Mtrs. has been maintained. He, therefore, submitted that considering the development in the price and other relevant factors, the impugned award cannot be said to be erroneous and the present appeal may not be entertained.

¶38

[6] In view of the rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present First Appeals can be entertained or not.

¶39

[7] As discussed earlier, other group of matters arising out of the same award delivered by the Reference Court in Reference case being Land Reference Case No.489 of 2005 were assailed before this Court by way of First Appeal No.2440 of 2011 and this Court by order dated 25.08.2011 has dismissed the said Appeal and upheld the impugned

¶40

FA/3876/2010

¶41

4/5

¶42

JUDGMENT

¶43

award of the Reference Court after considering the very issues or the contentions, which have been advanced. Moreover, in case of same Village : Ochhan, another, First Appeal No.44 of 2012 has also been preferred by the State challenging the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court which has not been entertained, and while passing the order in case of land acquired of the same village : Ochhan, the nature of the lands, situation and other relevant factors have been considered including the order passed in similar cases in respect of village : Ochhan as well as nearby villages were also considered. It is required to be mentioned that in the main Reference Case No.489/2005, discussion has been made with regard to the nature of the land, yield/crop as well as vicinity of the land acquired. In the present case, the land acquired is of the same village : Occhhal, for which, the award has been made. In fact, other acquired lands of the same village have been challenged as stated above in First Appeal No.2440 of 2011, and this Court has declined to interfere. Further, in First Appeal No.2475/2011 to 2485/2011, in respect of another village : Kesswan, this Court has declined to interfere.

¶44

[8] In the facts and circumstances and considering the entire material and evidence and considering the rival submissions, when the Reference Court has relied upon previous award in main Land Reference Case No.287 of 2005 and has awarded additional compensation for the land the same village, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned award of the Reference Court, which has also not been disturbed when it has been assailed by way of First Appeal No.44 of 2012 as well as First Appeal No.2440 of 20111.

¶45

[9] Therefore, having regard to the aforesaid aspect and considering the time gap as well as also keeping in mind the fact that increase of 10% is required to be added for the price rise of the land, the amount of Rs.53.50 per Sq.Mtr. awarded as additional compensation is just and proper. Therefore, this Court is in complete

¶46

FA/3876/2010

¶47

5/5

¶48

JUDGMENT

¶49

agreement with the findings arrived at and the reasons adopted for the award, which does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶50

[10] Therefore, the present First Appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed.

¶51

(RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.)

¶52

vijay

Special Land Acq. Officer v. Aminaben Wd/O Karimbhai Bhikhabhai Mumtazben

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Special Land Acq. Officer v. Aminaben Wd/O Karimbhai Bhikhabhai Mumtazben

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sujansinh S Singh Vs E.S.I. Corporation

Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Keshavlal Dahyabhai

Bank of India Vs Anjali Textiles

Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Dawoodbhai Musabhai

Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs Dawoodbhai Musabhai

Special Land Acq. Officer Vs Heirs of Mani D/O Ukkad Fula Chaturbhai Gumanbhai