Honourable Mr. Justice Jayant Patel
1. The present appeal arises against the judgement and the award passed by the Reference Court dated 23.12.2010, whereby the Reference Court has awarded compensation at Rs. 165 per square metre of the acquired land plus the statutory benefit u/s 23(1)(a), 23(2) and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. The relevant facts are that the lands at village Dudhrej were to be acquired for the project of Narmada Nigam Saurashtra Branch Canal under the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The notification u/s 4 of the Act was published on 29.08.2000. Ultimately, the award was passed u/s 11 of the Act, whereby compensation was fixed at Rs. 60,000 per hectare (Rs. 6 per square metre) for the non-irrigated land. As the claimants were satisfied with the compensation, they raised dispute u/s 18 of the Act and demanded compensation of Rs. 700 per square metre. The said dispute was referred to the Reference Court for adjudication and so far as the present appellant is concerned, the said reference was Reference No. 20/04. All such reference were referred to the Reference Court for adjudication and the Reference Court at the conclusion of the reference awarded the compensation at Rs. 165/- per square metre. So far as the award as it relates to the reference No. 20/04, the present appeal before this Court.
3. We have considered the judgement and the reasons recorded by the Reference Court. We have considered the evidence which was made available by the learned counsel for the appellant during the course of the hearing. We have heard Mr.Champaneri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant.
4. Mr.Champaneri, learned counsel for the appellant raised the first contention that the sale instances of the adjacent land were produced before the Reference Court. However, they have been discarded by the Reference Court on the ground that they were pertaining to small portions of land. He submitted that if the price quoted in the sale instance is taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the compensation is appropriately awarded by the Reference Court and therefore, there is an error.
5. The examination of the said contention shows that the said aspect has been considered by the Reference Court at paragraph 29, which reads as under:
29. On perusal of sale instances produced by the claimants from Ex.35 to 47 it seems that they are relating to small place of land, whereas in the instant case large number of lands were acquired in this regards learned advocate Mr. Vakil has relied upon the several judgments of Hon''ble High Courts and Apex Court. In this regards I have perused the development map of village Duharej and Surendranagar produced at Ex.69 and I have also perused the map produced by the opponents at Ex.74 on perusal of both the maps it seems that the lands which are shown in documentary evidence from Ex.35 to 47 are situated at a distance from the acquired lands and would not furnish good guidance for the purpose of determining market value of the lands acquired in the instance cases because further best evidence of previous judgement is available before this Court which has confirmed by the Highest Court of the Country. On the other side acquiring authorities have also relied upon the documentary evidence from Ex.74 to 87 by producing the said documents acquiring authorities wanted the reference court to determine the amount of compensation payable to the claimants on the basis of the documents. If this court calculate the compensation it would very law. The documentary evidence of previous award produced by acquiring authorities would not be taken into consideration because on judgment Ex.90 is of 31-12-87, i.e., more than thirteen years old after the date of notification under sec. 4 where as the other sale instance produced by the acquiring authorities at Ex.91 is the previous Judgment of dt.13-8- 62, i.e., more than thirty two years old from the date of notification of this case and therefore, as per the settle principles of law such type of evidence could not be taken in to consideration for determining the real market value of the acquired lands. Claimant of reference No. 20/2004 has stated in his deposition Ex.97 that he is entitle of reasonable compensation toward the said properties. In support of his say he has produced documentary evidence from Ex.54 to 65 in support of Ex.54 to 57 he has orally stated that though he made representation acquired authorities has not taken in to consideration of his request but he has not produced any documents of construction an therefore only these evidence in not sufficient to prove his say for obtaining more compensation, for proving the documentary evidence 58 to 65 he has not examine any supporting evidence and therefore, this court, without cogent evidence is not in a position to award more compensation awarded by acquiring authorities toward the said properties.
6. If the aforesaid reasons recorded by the Reference Court is taken into consideration with the additional facts of the present case that the land under acquisition of the appellant herein is a huge chunk of land admeasuring about 86150 square metre. As against the same, the alleged sale instances upon which the reliance is placed by the appellant are pertaining to the land admeasuring about less than 100 square metres in the majority of the cases and in any case not exceeding 125 square metre. If the land acquired is about 1000 times more in comparison to the land for which the sale instances are shown, the Reference Court was justified in not relying upon the evidence to trace the market value of the land. Under these circumstances, we find that the Reference Court has rightly not relied upon the sale instances and the documents. The aforesaid is coupled with the additional circumstance that no willing buyer or no willing seller were examined before the Reference Court and all those documents were accepted in the evidence in the deposition of the claimant.
7. Mr. Champaneri, learned counsel appearing for the appellant had additionally raised the contention that in view of the amended provision of section 51A of the Act, it is not necessary for the claimants to examine the seller or purchaser of the document and in the submission of Mr.Champaneri, once it is accepted in the evidence, it can be read for all purposes to find out the market value of the land.
8. We are afraid such contention can be accepted as sought to be canvassed. It is true that after the insertion of section 51A of the Act, even if executant of the document is not examined, upon the production of the certified copy, the document may be accepted as evidence, but thereby, it cannot be said that the aspect of reliability of the evidence is totally lost or that the power of the Court to examine the aspect of reliability is also lost or controlled. If the reliability is to be found, nothing prevented the claimant from examining the aspect as to whether the properties were sold in a free and fair atmosphere or rather was it a voluntary sale or a sale in compulsion due to personal circumstance or otherwise.
9. The another aspect is as observed earlier, even if the documents are considered in the evidence, they were not for the comparable land. Hence, the said contention cannot be accepted.
10. Apart from the above, the additional aspect in the present case and as recorded by the Reference Court in the impugned judgement is that, earlier the another acquisition had taken place of the land at village Dudhrej and there was litigation including that before the Reference Court, before this Court and thereafter, up to the Apex Court. The price was ultimately finalised at Rs. 110/- per square metre for the lands which were acquired by notification dated 17.09.1995 u/s 4 of the Act. The Reference Court therefore, in view of the said aspect has observed at para 31 of the impugned judgement but since the notification u/s 4 of the Act was published in the present case in the year 2000, the appreciation is considered for 5 years at the rate of 10% p.a. and has added Rs. 55 in the amount of Rs. 110 and has arrived at the figure of Rs. 165 as additional compensation. In our view, when there were decisions of this Court and also of the Apex Court on the aspect of valuation of the land of the adjacent area, and if the Reference Court has relied upon the same and has added the appreciation at 10% p.a., such an approach on the part of the Reference Court cannot be said to be erroneous.
11. In view of the above, we find that the appeal is meritless. Hence, dismissed.
