R.M. Chhaya, J.@mdashThese three appeals are directed against common judgment and award passed by 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch dated 30.4.2010 in Land Reference Case Nos. 346 of 2005 to 348 of 2005 under sections 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It may be noted that by order dated 14.9.2012 the appeals came to be admitted. Record further indicates that Civil Applications have been filed for stay of the impugned judgment and award. At the request of learned Counsels appearing for the parties the First Appeals were taken up for final hearing.
2. The facts indicate that lands belonging to respondents-original claimants situated at village Pahaj, Taluka Vagara, District Bharuch were sought to be acquired by the State Government for the public purpose of Narmada Canal Project which is also known as Mosam Vishakha Canal. The record further indicates that Section 4 notification was issued on 3.12.2001 whereby the land belonging to the respondents-original claimants being block No. 104 admeasuring 1-05-39 Sq. Mts., survey No. 114 admeasuring 0-08-67 Hectare Are. Hectare Mtrs. and survey No. 41 admeasuring 0-26-91 Hectare Are Sq. Mtrs. were sought to be acquired. Section 6 declaration was made on 10.4.2003. The proceedings so initiated culminated into an award u/s. 11(1) of the Act on 25.5.2004. It appears from the said award that Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @ Rs. 3.75 per Sq. Mtr.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid award, the respondents-original claimants preferred Reference u/s 18 of the Act, which came to be registered as Land Reference Case Nos. 346 of 2005 to 348 of 2005 before the Court of 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch and raised demand of Rs. 100/- per Sq. Mtr. as compensation. The Reference Court by impugned judgment and award dated 30.4.2010 has been pleased to fix the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 53/- per Sq. Mtr. The said judgment and award is impugned in this group of appeals.
4. Heard Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. P.P. Majmudar with Mr. N.R. Desai, learned Advocates for respondents-original claimants. Have also perused the impugned judgment and award as well as Record and Proceedings of the Reference Court. Mr. Alkesh Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants has submitted that the Reference Court has mechanically relied upon the previous award and the judgment of this Court being Exhibit Nos. 12 & 14. Mr. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader has contended that the Reference Court has not considered the cogent evidence on the basis of which the Special Land Acquisition Officer has declared the award. Mr. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader has also tried to raise the point of limitation and submitted that all the applications for Reference preferred by the respondents-original claimants were time barred and therefore the Reference Applications should have been dismissed. Mr. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader therefore submitted that the appeals deserve to be allowed.
5. Mr. Majmudar has supported the impugned judgment and award. Mr. Majmudar submitted that the judgment and award at Exhibit 12 is confirmed by this Court (Coram : Hon''ble Mr. Justice J.C. Upadhyaya [as His Lordship then was]) in First Appeal No. 971 of 2011 and allied appeals vide judgment dated 25.3.2011. It was therefore submitted on behalf of the respondents-original claimants that the Reference Court has rightly determined the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs. 53/-. It was therefore submitted that the appeals are meritless and same deserve to be dismissed.
6. No other or further submissions were made by the learned Advocates for the parties.
7. Considering the submissions made by both the sides and on perusal of the impugned judgment and award as well as Record and Proceedings, it transpires that the Reference Court has examined four documents which were placed on record by way of evidence. Exhibit 12 is previous award which was passed by the Reference Court in relation to the land situated at village Pahaj being Land Reference Case Nos. 1 of 2005 to 11 of 2005. The Reference Court has also relied upon Exhibits 15 & 16. On the basis of the evidence so adduced, the Reference Court has clearly observed in para 13 of the impugned judgment and award that the land under acquisition situated at village Pahaj has potentiality of natural development and more particularly the industries have come-up in surrounding areas. It has also observed on the appreciation of cogent evidence on record that in case of similar nature of land the Reference Court has fixed Rs. 53/- per Sq. Mtr. It is also noted that the lands which were the subject matter of acquisition in the judgment and award at Exh. 12 and the lands under acquisition are situated in the same village adjoining to each other. The appellants have not brought on record any evidence to show that the geographical location and potentiality of the land under acquisition is different than the land acquired under previous award Exhibit 12 which is confirmed right up-to this Court. It may further be noted that this Court (Coram : Honourable Mr. Justice J.C. Upadhyaya [as His Lordship then was]) by judgment and order dated 25.3.2011 rendered in First Appeal No. 971 of 2011 and allied matters has confirmed the judgment and award at Exhibit 12 and observed thus:
3. In the impugned judgment and award and more particularly perusing para. 11, it transpires that the Reference Court determined the amount of compensation @ Rs. 56-85 ps., per sq. mtr., and deducted Rs. 3-75 ps., from the said amount, which was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer u/s 11 of the Land Acquisition Act [''the Act'' for short]. The Reference Court took into consideration one earlier award passed in L.A.R. No. 1924/1993 wherein certain lands of village Roja Tankaria came to be acquired and in said matter the Reference Court had granted additional amount of compensation @ Rs. 22/- per sq. mtr., and in said matter the Special Land Acquisition Officer had granted compensation @ Rs. 3/- per sq. mtr., under sec. 11 of the Act and, therefore, in the earlier matter, namely L.A.R. No. 1924/1993 the claimants were awarded compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr. The Reference Court held that so far as the comparable judgment and award rendered in L.A.R. No. 1924/1993 was concerned, the same came to be confirmed in appeal by this Court and the said award was upheld by the Hon''ble Apex Court and about that, there is no dispute. In the instant case, the lands of the claimants situated in the outskirts of village Pahaj came to be acquired and evaluating the evidence on record, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that both the villages, namely Pahaj and Roja Tankaria are adjacent to each other. Moreover, as observed by the Reference Court in the earlier award rendered in L.A.R. No. 1924/1993, the notification under sec. 4 of the Act was published on 5/4/1990; whereas in the instant case, the notification was published on 22/1/2003 and, therefore, there was a gap of time of about 12 years and 9 months and the Reference Court further observed that, therefore, as per the settled principles, the claimants were entitled to get appreciation in the value of the land @ 10% p.a. Since in the earlier award the claimants were awarded compensation @ Rs. 25/- per sq. mtr., the annual appreciation in value of the land would come to Rs. 2-50 ps., and the same was required to be multiplied by 12.75, which would come to Rs. 31-85 ps. Adding to Rs. 31-85 in Rs. 25/-, net total would come to Rs. 56-85 ps. The Reference Court, therefore, held that in the instant case, the claimants were entitled to get compensation @ Rs. 56-85 ps., but in the award under sec. 11 of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has offered compensation @ Rs. 3-75 ps., per sq. mtr., and the same was required to be deducted and, therefore, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the claimants were entitled to recover additional compensation @ Rs. 53-10 ps., rounded off at Rs. 53/- per sq. mtr.
4. Nothing is submitted as to why the above observations made by the Reference Court in para. 11 in the impugned judgment and award is either contrary to the evidence on record or is erroneous. When such is the situation, this Court does not find any reason even at this stage to interfere with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court. Resultantly, the appeals lack merits and do not deserve admission.
8. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Majmudar, learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants the lands under acquisition are just adjacent to the lands which was the subject matter of acquisition for Land Reference Case Nos. 01 of 2005 to 11 of 2005. It may be noted that the appellants have not adduced any evidence contrary to this. Hence, on re-appreciation of the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the previous award (Exhibit-12) which has been confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 971 of 2011 and other allied matters. Taking into consideration the above facts and the previous award (Exhibit 12) are the best piece of evidence on record. The Reference Court has therefore rightly relied upon the same and has rightly made the said previous award (Exhibit 12) basis for determining the market value of the land under acquisition to be Rs. 53/- per Sq. Mtr.
9. The Reference Court in para 12 of the impugned judgment and award has rightly recorded that the reference applications were well within time. The appellants have not adduced any evidence to show that the reference applications were time barred. It is worthwhile to note that award u/s. 11 was made and declared on 25.5.2004 and reference applications are dated 4.8.2004. There is no evidence to show when copy of award was served upon the opponent claimants considering the ratio laid down by Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of
Civil Application No. 12516 of 2013
With
Civil Application No. 12597 of 2013
With
Civil Application NO. 12517 of 2013
In view of the fact that the First Appeals are disposed of, the present Civil Applications do not survive and stand dismissed.
