EXECUTIVE ENGINEER v. KANUBHAI NARANBHAI
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
all these First Appeals are dismissed at the admission
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE M.S.PARIKH Date of decision: 31/07/2000 ORAL JUDGEMENT (cid:9)All these appeals arise from the impugned judgment and order dated 9.3.88 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar in LAQ Case No. 155/96 to 175/96. All the aforesaid reference cases were decided by the trial court upon appreciation of the evidence in respect of acquisition of land situated in Pipalaj village, Tal. Gandhinagar. (cid:9)The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 2/ per sq.mtr. by way of compensation in Land Acquisition Case No. 17/82. The claimants being aggrieved with and dissatisfied by the said award, preferred aforesaid reference cases before the trial court. The claimants adduced evidence with regard to the nature of the lands in question coupled with the instance of award in LAR No. 93/96 to 115/96. As per the award passed in the said reference cases, additional compensation of Rs.
16/- per sq.mtr. was awarded and the said award was accepted by the Government. The trial court has held that the said award concerned lands in village Unava, which is adjacent to village Pipalaj; hence, he found the award in respect of the said lands comparable with the lands in question. (cid:9)Mr KG Sheth learned AGP submitted that simply because there was an award with respect to the adjacent lands, comparability could not have been upheld by the trial court. He, however, could not point out any evidence which would dislodge the conclusion reached to by the learned trial judge. As a matter of fact, there is evidence on the record of the reference cases and Mr KG Sheth learned AGP does not have any counter submission in respect of such evidence to the effect that the lands in question have full irrigation facilities; 2 to 3 three crops per season could be obtained; net earning per bigha per year could be Rs.
Operative part
20,000/ and village Pipalaj was found to be one of the centers where industries were developing. Bearing in mind such circumstances emanating from the evidence adduced by the claimants the trial court proceeded to compare the award. In doing so, it has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madras vs. A.M. Mahajan & Ors., reported in 1976 SCC 473. In my considered opinion, the learned trial judge cannot be said to have committed an error in comparing the unchallenged award in respect of the lands situated in the adjacent village. (cid:9)Except two cases where compensation is works out at Rs. 18000/ and odd, in rest of the cases compensation is less than Rs. 15000/. Hence, the claims clearly appear to be petty claims, not required to be entertained in the appeals as observed by this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Shedhi Irrigation Mahi Canal vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Nadiad & Anr., reported in 1999(1) GLH p. 590. (cid:9)In above view of the matter, the award of additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 16/per sq. mtr. appears to be quite just and reasonable. Hence, all these First Appeals are dismissed at the admission stage itself. ********** mandora/
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: all these First Appeals are dismissed at the admission
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Gujarat High Court, on 31 Jul 2000. The bench was M S PARIKH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.