The High Court of Gujarat set aside awards of the Reference Court due to serious computational and arithmetical errors in yield-based compensation assessment, despite declining to revisit the underlying factual conclusions.
Impugned judgment and awards set aside; Reference Court directed to pass fresh awards expeditiously correcting computational errors.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C/FA/296/2018 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 296 of 2018
With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 298 of 2018 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 300 of 2018 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 302 of 2018 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 303 of 2018 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 304 of 2018 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 305 of 2018
==========================================================
PATEL VITHAL KARMAN
Versus STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SANJAY M AMIN(130) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA
Date : 30/07/2018
COMMON ORAL ORDER
Page 1 of 4
C/FA/296/2018 ORDER
2. Brief facts are as under:-
2.1 Different parcels of lands of the claimants came to be acquired by the Government, for which notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 05.07.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 25.09.1998, in which he granted compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per Are for non-irrigated lands and at the rate of Rs.375/- per Are for irrigated lands. The claimants sought reference against the award. Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied on yield method of assessment and produced evidence in this respect. From the evidence on record, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the annual yield of the crops per ‘vigha’ was Rs.1,26,563/-. The Reference Court set apart 50% thereof for the cost of production such as fertilizer, pesticides, labour charges, etc. and held that the annual income from such land was Rs.63,281/- per ‘vigha’. The Reference Court adopted multiplier of 10 for the purpose of assessing market value of the land. Though not recorded in the judgment, this would mean that according to the Reference Court, the value of the land was assessed at Rs.6,32,815/- per ‘vigha’. Since the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation on the basis of per Are computation, the Reference Court then converted such market value of the land on the basis of Ares. According to the learned Judge, this would come to Rs.3,955/- per Are. He therefore awarded such sum for irrigated lands and after deducting Rs.375/- already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, he awarded additional compensation of Rs.3580/- per Are. For nonirrigated lands, he reduced the compensation by 25% and granted additional compensation of Rs.2716/- per Are.
Page 2 of 4
C/FA/296/2018 ORDER
Page 3 of 4
C/FA/296/2018 ORDER
awards are set aside. The Reference Court shall pass fresh awards by carrying out correction in the computation of compensation payable to the land owners in terms of the observations made in this judgment. This may be done expeditiously. Once such fresh awards are passed, it would be open for the aggrieved party, be the Government or the claimants, to challenge the same. All appeals are disposed of accordingly.
(J.B.PARDIWALA, J)
Vahid
Page 4 of 4
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Reference Court committed arithmetical and computational errors in assessing compensation under the yield method.
Whether these appellate courts can correct arithmetic errors when the underlying factual finding of market value is open to challenge.
What direction should be issued to the Reference Court regarding the assessment of compensation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Patel Vithal Karmen
State of Gujarat
J.B. Pardiwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
