Quashed

Punja Mulu v. State of Gujarat through

Gujarat HC14 Aug 2018FA/3119/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In first appeals, the Gujarat High Court identified serious computational errors by the Reference Court regarding land yield and unit conversion in a land acquisition award. The Court held the appeal would not be used to convert its own error regarding yield assessment. The impugned awards were set aside for failure, remanding them for fresh calculation.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and awards set aside; Reference Court directed to pass fresh awards after correcting computation errors expeditiously.

Punja Mulu Vs State of Gujarat through — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2018)

¶1

C/FA/3084/2017 JUDGMENT

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3084 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3005 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3089 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3091 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3092 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3105 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3106 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3110 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3115 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3116 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3117 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3118 of 2017 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3119 of 2017

¶4

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

¶5

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

¶6

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

¶7

1	Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?	NO
2	To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	NO
3	Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?	NO
4	Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ?	NO

¶8

Page 1 of 4

¶9

C/FA/3084/2017 JUDGMENT

¶10

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

¶11

SAJAN DEVA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH

¶12

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

¶13

Appearance:

¶14

MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1 MR RAKESH PATEL, AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No.1

¶15

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

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

¶17

Date : 14/08/2018 COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

¶18

These appeals are filed by the original claimants. They have challenged the judgment and awards dated 03.12.2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in the Land Reference Case No.39 of 2009 and allied matters. The grievance is limited. Their contention is that the Reference Court, in the process of passing awards, has committed arithmetical and computational errors, which has drastically reduced the compensation payable to the claimants. They therefore seek rectification of such errors and the interference of this Court to this limited extent.

¶19

2. Brief facts are as under:-

¶20

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 16.05.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 22.02.1999, 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

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

C/FA/3084/2017 JUDGMENT

¶23

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 non-irrigated lands, he reduced the compensation by 25% and granted additional compensation of Rs.2716/- per Are.

¶24

Having heard learned Advocates for the parties, we record that the Reference Court has committed two serious calculation errors. First is of assessing the net yield of the land at Rs.63,281/- per ‘vigha’. This is so because the claimants had produced evidence of the yield of the land on the basis of per hectare measurement and not per ‘vigha’. Even according to the claimants, the total yield before expenditure was Rs.1,26,563/per hectare. If the Reference Court believed that 50% thereof should be set apart for production of cost and multiplier of 10 should be adopted for computing the market value of the land. This would bring the value of the land at Rs.6,32,815/- per hectare and not per ‘vigha’ as held by the Reference Court.

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

C/FA/3084/2017 JUDGMENT

¶27

The second computational error committed by the Reference Court was in converting this figure of Rs.6,32,815/- (erroneously taken to be the market value of one ‘vigha’ of land) into the value of the land per Are.

¶28

In plain terms, the result of the conclusion of the Reference Court that the market value of the land was Rs.6,32,815/- per hectare would mean that the value of the land per Are would be Rs.6,328.15. Though these are purely computational and arithmetical errors, we are not prepared to correct them in these appeals since the very foundational conclusion of the Reference Court that as per yield method, the market value of the land should be assessed at Rs.6,32,815/- per hectare, is open to questioning and we do not propose to convert this finding into our conclusion.

¶29

Under the circumstances, impugned judgment and 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.

¶30

(J.B.PARDIWALA, J)

¶31

aruna

¶32

Page 4 of 4

Punja Mulu v. State of Gujarat through

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Punja Mulu v. State of Gujarat through

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

Rajput Chhaguji Modaji Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

Union of India Vs Bhagvatsingh Suvesingh Yadav

Union of India Vs Gujarat Electricity Board

Rohit Kanjibhai Mahijibhai Vs Makanbhai Kalabhai

Harijan Dana Desa Vs State of Gujarat through

Rupa Kama Vs State of Gujarat through