Jayant Patel, J.@mdashThe present appeals arise against the judgment and the award passed by the Reference Court dated 6/5/2008, whereby Reference Court has awarded compensation at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr., plus the statutory benefits u/s 23[1-A] for increase in the price, solarium u/s 23[2] and the interest u/s 28 of the Land Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''].
2. The short facts of the case are that the land at village Madhapar were acquired for the requirement of Rajkot Municipal Corporation to establish Ground-drainage Plan, Sewerage Treatment Plant, etc., under the Act. The notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 30/4/1987. The notification u/s 6 of the Act was published on 31/12/1987 and the award was published by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 17/5/1989, whereby he granted compensation at Rs. 4/- per sq. mtr. As the claimants were not satisfied with the compensation, they raised the dispute u/s 18 of the Act and demanded compensation at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr. The said dispute was referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being Reference Case Nos. 963/1998 to 965/1998. The Reference Court, at the conclusion of the reference, passed the aforesaid common judgment and the award and awarded the compensation at Rs. 100/- per sq. mtr., with the statutory benefits as referred to hereinabove. It is under these circumstances, the present appeals before us.
3. We have heard Mr. Jayant Bhatt, Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Yogesh Lakhani, Ld. Sr. Counsel with Mr. Sheth for the Respondents � original claimants and Mr. Meena and Ms. Moxa Thakkar for the State of Gujarat.
4. We have considered the judgment and the reasons recorded therein. We have also considered the evidence which has been made available by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties for the purpose of supporting their contentions, which have been referred to by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment.
5. The perusal of the judgment of the Reference Court shows that major reliance placed by the Reference Court for the assessment of the market value of the land is upon the allotment of the land by the District Collector to the Telecommunication Department of the Central Government for construction of staff quarters at village Madhapar, bearing survey No. 111 ad-measuring 23 acres and the valuation fixed by the State Government for allotment of such land. If the said document at exh. 17 is considered, it appears that the same is the communication from the District Collector to the District Manager, Telephone, wherein there is reference to the decision of the State Government dated 31/7/1987 for allotment of the land at village Madhapar bearing survey No. 111 ad-measuring 23 acres for construction of staff quarters at Rs. 90/- per sq. mtr. Even if the reasons recorded by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment for consideration of the said aspect are taken into account for the assessment of the market value, it appears that the important aspect, which has been lost sight of by the Reference Court, is the distinction between the valuation of the land allotted by the Government for non-agricultural purpose and the status of the land in question, which has been acquired, being agricultural land. This Court had an occasion to consider the said aspect in the case of State of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. v. Amaji Mohanji Thakore reported in 2010 [3] G.L.H. 447, wherein based on the land allotted to the Municipality for public purpose, a contention was raised to take into consideration the price of the valuation fixed by the Government and to arrive at the valuation of the land in question, which was agricultural land. In the said decision, this Court did accept the contention that the valuation made by the Government for allotment of the land to an institution or any citizen, deserved to be considered for arriving at the market value. However, on the aspect of distinction about the nature of the land, the Court observed at paras. 29 and 30 as under:
29. The aforesaid takes us to examine the next question about the nature of the land and change in the nature of the land, if any, and its effect for the purpose of the assessment of the market value of the land.
30. The order of the Collector dated 31/3/2006 for allotment of the land is of Block No. 1724 admeasuring 1 Hectre - 00 Are in favour of the Water Supply and Sewerage Board. The said order shows that the Valuation Committee has made the value of the land of the very village Kherwa on 10/5/2004 at Rs. 200/- per sq. mtrs. Further, the allotment of the land is for non-agricultural purpose for construction of Head Works in the Water Supply Project, whereas the land in question has been acquired as per the Notification u/s 4 of the Act on 1/12/2005 and the nature of the land was agricultural land and not non-agricultural land. If the area and the size of the different portions of the agricultural land acquired in the present case is considered claimant/owner-wise, in majority of the acquisition the area is less than 1 hectre. Therefore, so far as the area is concerned and as the land allotted is 1 hectre and the acquisition of the majority of the land is less than 1 hectre per claimant/owner-wise there would not be any change or reduction in the valuation of the land of larger size acquisition as against the price fixed for a smaller area. The nature of the land or the character of the land under acquisition and the land which is allotted by the Direct Collector appears to be different inasmuch as the land under acquisition is acquired as agricultural land, whereas the land allotted by the Director Collector is though waste land, but for non-agricultural purpose. If any agricultural land is to be converted for non-agricultural purpose, there will be about 25% deduction in the area itself and further the conversion charges of agricultural land will have to be paid for non-agricultural use and such expenses for conversion would also be roughly 5%, by way of a burden upon the agricultural land. Therefore, it appears to us that if the aforesaid two circumstances are taken into consideration, the difference between the market price of the agricultural land and the market price of the non-agricultural land shall be minimum 30%. To say in other words, the agricultural land shall be less by 30% as against the price of the non-agricultural land.
6. The aforesaid shows that as per the view expressed by this Court, difference between the market price of the agricultural land and market price of non-agricultural land shall be minimum 30% and to say in other words, the price of the agricultural land shall be less by 30% as against price of the non-agricultural land. Exactly the same fact situation has arisen in the present case, in asmuchas the land allotted by the Government to the Telephone Department may be waste land, is allotted for non agricultural purpose for construction of staff quarters and, therefore, price of the valuation so fixed for the purpose of allotment can be termed as the valuation of non agricultural land. As against the same, it is an admitted position that the lands in question, which were acquired, were agricultural lands and, therefore, the deduction shall be less by 30% in comparison to the price of the valuation fixed by the Government for allotment of the land to the Telephone Department.
7. It was contended by Mr. Lakhani, Ld. Counsel for the original claimants that it is not sine-qua-non that in every case, there will be deduction of 30% if the value of the land in question is to be arrived at. He submitted that the purpose for which the land acquired is also required to be taken into consideration. In the submission of Mr. Lakhani, if the land is acquired for the purpose of water sewerage plant or even under-ground drainage, no additional expenses would be required to be incurred for development of the land like that of construction of the residential quarters, for which the land was allotted to the Telephone Department of the Central Government. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision of Hon''ble the Supreme Court rendered in
8. In our view, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case because of the simple reason that it is not a matter where the valuation is to be compared or to be reduced of the land in question on account of the development to be made or the expenses of the development to be incurred, but in the present case, valuation is to be considered and the difference in valuation is to be considered because of the nature of the land, namely one being non agricultural land and the price of the valuation fixed thereof in comparison to the agricultural land of the adjoining area.
9. Mr. Lakhani next contended that if the land is already located in the developed area, then in that case, the deduction to the extent of 20% may be justified and not more. In support of his contention, he has relied upon decision rendered in the case of
10. The said decision also would be of no help to the original claimants � Respondents herein for the simple reason that it is not even the case of the Respondents � claimants that the lands were located in the draft development plan for a particular purpose which may be other than agriculture, but on the contrary, the land is located at village Madhapar, may be adjacent to the limits of the Rajkot Municipal Corporation, at a distance of 5 Kms. Therefore, the development is to be considered in light of location of the land outside the corporation area. In any case, the decision upon which the reliance placed, was not for consideration of the case for difference of the valuation between the non agricultural land and agricultural land, but rather was a case for comparing the value of the adjacent land and the deductions to be made of the land having the same nature. Under the circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the Respondents cannot be accepted.
11. If we consider the aforesaid observation and discussion, it would lead us to arrive at the market value of the land in question by making deduction of 30% as recorded hereinabove, after considering the valuation of the land alloted by the State Government to the Telephone Department of the Central Government. 30% of Rs. 90/- would come to Rs. 27/- and hence the net amount would come to Rs. 63/-, which can be assessed as market value of the land in question at the time of acquisition. We would have considered the distinction of the appreciation on account of the time gap between the notification u/s 4 of the Act and the valuation made of the land and the decision of the State Government for allotment of the land to the Telephone Department. However, it appears that the time gap is of only 3 months. Under the circumstances, no further reduction may be required to be made, out of the amount of Rs. 63/-. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has already awarded the compensation of Rs. 4/- per sq. mtr., and consequently the additional compensation would be Rs. 59/- per sq. mtr., of the land in question. So far as the other statutory benefits awarded by the Reference Court under Sections 23[1-A], 23[2] and 28 of the Act are concerned, the same are not required to be interfered with save and except to the extent that on account of reduction in the principal amount of compensation, such amount shall proportionately get reduced.
12. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, the judgment and the award passed by the Reference Court for awarding the additional compensation exceeding Rs. 59/- per sq. mtr., of the land in question is quashed and set aside. Further, as observed earlier, the statutory benefits awarded by the Reference Court on the principal amount of compensation are not interfered with, but with the clarification that the principal amount of compensation shall be Rs. 59/- per sq. mtr.
The appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Decree accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
13. The Reference Court shall be at liberty to give effect to the judgment upon production of the certified copy of this judgment.
