HONOURABLE MR v. NIRANJANABEN ZAVERBHAI & Ors.

allowed to go unchallenged. FA/896/2007 JUDGMENT

3.3 It may be mentioned that no witness was examined on behalf of the Acquiring Authorities.

4. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the claimants, the Reference Court was of the opinion that on the yield basis as well as on the basis of the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Village: Vagra, the claimants were entitled to additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.40.90 Paise per square metre and awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.40.90 Paise per square metre, by the impugned award giving rise to the instant appeals.

5. This Court has heard Ms.Mini Niar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant, and Mr.A.J.Patel, learned counsel for the original claimant(s) in each appeal, at length and in great detail. This Court has also considered the paper-book supplied by the learned counsel for the claimants, which includes oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties before the Reference Court. FA/896/2007 JUDGMENT

6. In Special Land Acquisition, Davangere vs. P.Veerabhadarappa, etc. etc., AIR 1984 SC 774, it is laid down that the function of the Court in awarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value of land at the date of the notification under Section 4(1) and the methods of valuation may be: (1) opinion of experts; (2) the prices paid within a reasonable time in bona fide transaction of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar advantages; and (3) a number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. What is emphasised in the said decision is that normally, the method of capitalizing the actual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of years' purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of the market value. For the guidance of courts in the country, it is laid down that yield method can be resorted to only when no other method is available. Applying the principles laid down in the above quoted decision to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that FA/896/2007 JUDGMENT the Reference Court was not justified in determining the market value of the lands acquired on yield basis more particularly when the evidence in the form of previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Village: Vagra was available on record. The previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Village: Vagra is produced by the claimants at Exhibit 24. It indicates that the lands of Village: Vagra were acquired for public purpose of ONGC Project pursuant to publication of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act in the official gazette on April 28, 1989. Therein, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.7/- per square metre. Feeling aggrieved, the claimants had sought references and accordingly, the references were made to the District Court, Bharuch, where they were numbered as L.A.R.Nos.1282 of 1990 to 1291 of 1990. In those cases, witness Musabhai Umarji Patel was examined at Exhibit 96 whereas another witness Hanumanbhai Ishwarbhai Patel was examined at Exhibit 103 and witness Omprakash Dahyabhai Pandya was examined at Exhibit 109. Further, the claimants had FA/896/2007 JUDGMENT also examined Raisang Babubhai Makwana at Exhibit 118 and witness Ramanbhai Pujabhai Vankar was examined at Exhibit 125. On behalf of the Acquiring Authorities, witness Harishchandra Kanaiyalal Shah was examined at Exhibit 131 and witness Parsottambhai Haribhai Chotaliya was examined at Exhibit 135. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the Reference Court by judgment and award dated January 10, 2002 awarded additional amount of compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.31/- per square metre. Thus, those claimants were awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.38/- per square metre.

7. As observed earlier, it was asserted by witness Ibrahim Bapusaheb that the lands of Village: Vagra and the lands acquired in the instant cases were situated near each other. It was also claimed by him that the lands acquired from Village Vagra were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case. This assertion was neither challenged by the Acquiring Authorities nor proved to be untrue. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the previous award of the Reference Court FA/896/2007 JUDGMENT relating to the lands of Village: Vagra would furnish good guidance for the purpose of determining the market value of the lands acquired in the instant cases from Village: Saran. It is well settled that the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of a village, which has attained finality, can be taken into consideration as a good guidance for the purpose of determining the market value of similar lands acquired subsequently from the adjoining village. The record further shows that the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Village: Vagra, which was rendered in Land Reference Case Nos.1282 to 1291 of 1990, was subjected to challenge in First Appeal Nos.1942 to 1951 of 2003 and cognate matters and that the High Court by judgment dated June 19, 2006 upheld the same. The fact that the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Village: Vagra has attained finality cannot be disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the claimants were justified in placing reliance upon the same for the purpose of claiming enhanced compensation. There is a general consensus between FA/896/2007 JUDGMENT the learned counsels for the parties that on the basis of the previous award relating to the lands of Village: Vagra, as confirmed by the High Court, the claimants would be entitled to compensation, in all, at the rate of Rs.43/- per square metre. Thus, this Court does not find any merits in the appeals and, therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

8. For the foregoing reasons, all the appeals fail and are dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. The Registry is directed to draw decree in terms of this judgment immediately. Rajendra (J. M. Panchal, J.)