Xerox copy of the notice given by Shri H.B.Patel to Executive Engineer v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in (1977) 1 SCC & Ors.

As all these First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) are against one common judgment and award, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. As such First Appeals No.4092 of 2007 to 4095 of 2007 are the Cross Appeals filed by the original claimants.

First Appeals No.4069 of 2007 to 4072 of 2007 are filed by the appellants herein – original opponents i.e. Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as Executive Engineer, Gandhinagar under Section 54 of the Act challenging the common judgment and award dated FA/4069/2007 3 JUDGMENT

11.10.2006 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.924/98 to 927/98 (Main L.A.R. No.924/98) by which the Reference Court directed the appellants to pay additional compensation to the respondents herein – original claimants at the rate of Rs.1,733/- per sq.mtr over and above the amount of compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

First Appeals No.4092/07 to 4095/07 are the Cross Appeals filed by the original claimants challenging the aforesaid common judgment and award dated 11.10.2006 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar, passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.924/98 to 927/98 (Main L.A.R. No.924/98) in not awarding the full compensation as prayed for i.e. at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per sq.mtr., and in awarding the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.1,733/- per sq.mtr only. Pursuant to the judicial order passed by this Court and these appeals are in fact Cross Appeals, these appeals FA/4069/2007 4 JUDGMENT were directed to be heard along with First Appeals No.4069/07 to 4072/07, and therefore, they are being disposed of with present group of First Appeals.

The claimants of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.924 of 1998 were the owners of land bearing Survey Nos.62, 64/4, 61, 64/2 situated at Village Sargasan, District Gandhinagar. Original claimants of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.925/98 were the owners of land bearing Survey No.63 situated at Village Sargasan. Original claimants of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.926/98 was the owner of land bearing Survey No.64/1 and original claimants of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.927/98 was the owner of land bearing Survey No.64/3 situated at Village Sargasan, District Gandhinagar.

4.1 The aforesaid lands were sought to be acquired and a Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on 20.5.1993. Thereafter Notification under Section 6 of the FA/4069/2007 5 JUDGMENT Act came to be published on 17.3.1994. The notices under Section 9(2) of the Act came to be issued and it appears from the award under Section 11 of the Act that the interested persons submitted their replies on 24.3.1994 and prayed for compensation at the rate between Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- per sq.mtr. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 18.1.1996 in Land Acquisition Case No. 8 of 1991 determining the compensation in respect of the aforesaid lands by fixing Rs.17/- per sq.mtr., as the market value.

4.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 18.1.1996 determining the market value of the lands in question at Rs.17/- per sq.mtr., the original claimants submitted the reference applications under Section 18 of the Act which were referred to the District Court, Ahmedabad (Rural) and were numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Nos.476/98 to 480/98. It appears that thereafter the District Court, FA/4069/2007 6 JUDGMENT Gandhinagar, came to be established and Village Sargasan was included within the jurisdiction of Gandhinagar District and therefore all the aforesaid reference cases came to be transferred to District Court, Gandhinagar, and they were renumbered as Land Acquisition Reference Nos.924/98 to 927/98, and all the aforesaid reference cases were consolidated and heard together. The Reference Court recorded the evidence as common evidence of all the aforesaid land reference cases in main Land Acquisition Reference No.924/98. The original claimants prayed the compensation at Rs.4,000/- per sq.mtr., with respect to the lands in question. Written statement came to be filed on behalf of the appellants herein – original opponents at Exh.12. It was contended on behalf of the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the written statement that the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.17/- per sq.mtr., is just and proper and reasonable and the same is considered after taking into consideration all the relevant FA/4069/2007 7 JUDGMENT factors i.e. fertility of land and sale deed of last five years. It was also submitted that the claimants have not produced any documentary evidence at the time of acquisition of lands.

4.3 On behalf of the claimants, the following documentary evidences came to be produced. (i) Original copies of extract of Village Form No.7/12 of Survey Numbers of Village Vavol at Mark 16/1 to 16/5. (ii) Certified copy of the judgment delivered by the Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar in L.A.R. No.6/04 & 36/04 of Village Dholakuva at Exh.41.

(iii) Xerox copy of the notice given by Shri H.B.Patel to Executive Engineer, Gandhinagar at Exh.43. (iv) Certified copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court at Exh.44. FA/4069/2007 8 JUDGMENT (v) Xerox copy of the letter of Special Land Acquisition Officer at Exh.42. (vi) Government Resolution showing the Sector-wise market value of the lands for the year 2001-2002-2003 at Exh.45. (vii) Map showing the development plan by GUDA at Exh.46. (viii) Certified copy of auction made by District Collector for plots at Exh.47. (ix) Certified copy of the judgment delivered by Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar in L.A.R. No.839/98 of Village Vavol at Exh.48. (x) Certified copy of order passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar regarding sanction of auction dated 5.2.1986 at Exh.57. (xi) Certified copy of order passed by the FA/4069/2007 9 JUDGMENT Collector, Gandhinagar regarding sanction of auction dated 24.2.1986 at Exh.58. (xii) Certified copy of order passed by the Collector, Gandhinagar regarding sanction of auction dated 27.7.86 at Exh.59. (xiii) Certified copy of Government Resolution showing the market value fixed by the Government for residential area of Gandhinagar for the period from 1.4.2002 to

31.3.2003 at Exh.60. (xiv) Certified copy of Government Resolution showing the market value fixed by the Government for residential area of Gandhinagar for the period from 1.4.1998 to

31.2.1999 at Exh.61. (xv) Certified copy of Government Resolution dated 29.11.1999 regarding allotment of land for info city, Gandhinagar at Exh.62. FA/4069/2007 10 JUDGMENT (xvi) Certified copy of the Resolution passed by the R&B Department, Gandhinagar regarding allotment of land to the Institute of Electronic & Incoming Technology at Exh.63. (xvii) Certified copy of the order passed by the Collector regarding auction of Plot No.199 situated at Sector 21, Gandhinagar at Exh.64.

4.4 On behalf of all the claimants one Shri Vikrambhai Somabhai Patel came to be examined on oath at Exh.17. It is to be noted that the said Vikrambhai Somabhai Patel who came to be examined on behalf of all the claimants is one of the claimant in Land Acquisition Reference No.924/98. The said Vikrambhai Somabhai Patel was also cross-examined by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State.

4.5 On behalf of the acquiring body and the State, one Asvinkumar Bholanath Jani came to be FA/4069/2007 11 JUDGMENT examined at Exh.24. The Special Land Acquisition Officer was also examined at Exh.27. On behalf of the State and the acquiring body, the following documentary evidences came to be produced. (i) Exh.28 Map of Village Sargasan. (ii) Exh.29 Award of Special Land Acquisition Officer of Village Sargasan. (iii) Exh.30 Award of Special Land Acquisition Officer of Village Vasana, Hadmatiya-Vavol-Sargasan. (iv) Exh.31 Xerox copy of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in First Appeal No.704 to 729/93 dated 14.9.94. (v) Exh.32 Xerox copy of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in First Appeal No.580/95 to 595/95 dated

16.2.95. (vi) Exh.33 Xerox copy of judgment delivered by Assistant District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in L.A.R. No.195/78. FA/4069/2007 12 JUDGMENT (vii) Exh.34 Xerox copy of judgment delivered by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar of Village Adalaj in L.A.R. No.442 to 444/98 and letter of Government dated 5.7.2005. (viii) Exh.35 Xerox copy of judgment delivered by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar of Village Pundrasan in L.A.R. No.705/98 and letter of Government dated 4.6.2005. (ix) Exh.36 Xerox copy of judgment delivered by learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar of Village Ridrol in L.A.R. No.707/98 to 716/98 and letter of Government dated 18.8.2005. (x) Exh.37 Xerox copy of opinion of Special Land Acquisition Officer under Law Officers Rules 132 in L.A.R. Nos.6 and 36/04 of dated 1.6.2005.

4.6 The Reference Court framed the issues at Exh.14 and thereafter after having heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of both the parties and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record oral as well documentary FA/4069/2007 13 JUDGMENT passed the impugned common judgment and award dated 11.10.2006 determining the market value of the lands in question at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per sq.mtr., ( 100 times more than the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer) and deducting Rs.17/- per sq.mtr., awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, passed an award directing the appellants to pay additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.1,733/- per sq.mtr., with all other statutory benefits available under the Act.

4.7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Executive Engineer on behalf of the State have preferred First Appeals No.4069/07 to 4072/07. The original claimants have also preferred Cross Appeals being First Appeals No.4092/07 to 4095/07 challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in not awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per sq.mtr. FA/4069/2007 14 JUDGMENT

Shri Kamal B.Trivedi, learned Advocate General with Ms.Sangeeta Vishen, learned Assistant Government Pleader has appeared on behalf of appellants of First Appeals No.4069/07 to 4072/07. Shri A.J.Patel, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of original claimants and the appellants of First Appeals No.4092/07 to 4095/07.

Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State has vehemently submitted that the Reference Court has materially erred in determining the market price of the lands in question at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per sq.mtr., and thereafter has committed an error in awarding the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that the Reference Court has materially erred in relying upon the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 7.5.2005 passed in Land Reference Cases No.6/04 and 36/04 with respect to the lands situated at Village FA/4069/2007 15 JUDGMENT Dholakuva produced at Exh.41. It is submitted that the award passed in reference cases with respect to Village Dholakuva could not have been relied upon by the Reference Court in view of the fact that being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award the State has preferred First Appeals No.3615/05 and 3616/05 and the said appeals are admitted by this Court and are pending for final hearing. It is submitted that even otherwise looking to the distance between Village Dholakuva and Village Sargasan, the lands situated at Village Dholakuva cannot be said to be a comparable instance and therefore also the judgment and award with respect to Village Dholakuva could not have been relied upon by the Reference Court while determining the compensation/market price at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that the Reference Court while passing the impugned judgment and award has solely relied upon the judgment and award passed in reference application with respect to the lands of Village Dholakuva produced at Exh.41. It is submitted FA/4069/2007 16 JUDGMENT that no other evidence has been relied upon by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and award granting the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per sq.mtr.

6.1 Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State and the acquiring body has submitted that though the other evidences were available on record which were produced on behalf of the State at Exhs.29, 30, 31, 32 and 48 which can be said to be comparable instances, the Reference Court has not dealt with and considered the same at all. It is submitted that the said evidences were relating to comparable lands i.e. land adjoining and/or in the vicinity of the lands acquired and the Reference Court has erred in not referring the same. It is submitted that with respect to the lands of Village Vavol, just adjacent to the lands in question and where the acquisition was ad-measuring 1,81,504 sq.mtr., and with respect to the Notification under Section 4 dated

7.7.1983, the Division Bench of this Court in FA/4069/2007 17 JUDGMENT First Appeals No.704/93 to 729/93 vide judgment and order dated 14.9.1994 has determined the market price of the land at Village Vavol at Rs.50/- per sq.mtr., and considering 10% rise for every year, the market price of the land in question would come to Rs.180/- per sq.mtr. It is further submitted that even another Division Bench of this Court in First Appeals No.580/95 to 595/95 vide judgment and order dated 16.2.1995 has determined the market price of the land at Village Vavol which is just adjacent to the land in question at Rs.50/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that the said judgment and order is with respect to the Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 19.2.1981 and the acquisition was with respect to 2,14,433 sq.mtrs. of land. It is submitted that considering the same and giving 10% rise for every year, the market price of the land in question would come to Rs.158/- per sq.mtr.

6.2 It is further submitted that even with respect to the land situated at Village Vavol FA/4069/2007 18 JUDGMENT i.e. land which is adjacent to the land in question, the very Reference Court has by judgment and award dated 16.2.2005 in L.A.R. Nos.839/98 to 841/98, 311/98 & 332/98 to 336/98 has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.210/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that Section 4 Notification with respect to the said land ad-measuring 53,962/- sq.mtr. situated at Village Vavol (just adjacent to the land in question) was dated 13.8.1992 and Section 4 Notification so far as the land in question is concerned has been issued on 20.5.1993, and considering 10% rise per year, the market price of the land in question would come to Rs.231/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that the said judgment and award has been produced at Exh.48. It is submitted that, in spite of the aforesaid comparable instances with respect to Village Vavol and the said lands are just adjacent to the acquired land in question, still the Reference Court has not referred to and dealt with and has not relied upon the same, and relying upon the judgment and award passed in reference case with FA/4069/2007 19 JUDGMENT respect to Village Dholakuva which is far away, the Reference Court has awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.1,750/- per sq.mtr. Thus, it is submitted that the vital documentary evidences produced at Exh.31, 32 and 48 have not been considered and dealt with by the Reference Court.

6.3 Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General has submitted that on the other hand the claimants have relied upon the upset price or on the market value of the smaller plots situated in developed area of Gandhinagar Township, either acquired for commercial purpose or residential purpose which is totally misplaced inasmuch as when the market value of the comparable lands in terms of size, situation and characteristic is available, then in that case, there is no question of considering the market value of a smaller plot for determining the market value of the bigger plot by allowing deduction of 20% to 30%. The learned Advocate General has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court RAVINDRA NARAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in FA/4069/2007 20 JUDGMENT (2003) 4 SCC 481 (para 7) and PRITHVI RAJ TANEJA (DEAD) BY LRS. VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in (1977) 1 SCC 684 (para 6), it is submitted that the decision in both the cases are of a larger bench. It is submitted that as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions, the rates fixed for smaller plots cannot be the basis to award the compensation for the acquisition of a larger area.

6.4 It is also further submitted that there arises no question of comparing the smaller plots of land situated in various sectors i.e. developed areas of Gandhinagar Township as held by this Court vide its judgment and order dated

14.9.1994 in First Appeal No.1983 of 1992 and others (Exh.31).

6.5 It is submitted that the claimants have relied upon the sale instances and the upset price and/or the auction price with respect to the smaller plots by relying documentary FA/4069/2007 21 JUDGMENT evidences at Exh.45, 47, 57, 58, 59 & 60 which are of the smaller plots ad-measuring 131.25 sq.mtr. to 200 sq.mtr., and with respect to the plots situated within Gandhinagar Township itself in Sector 16 and Sector 21 and that too with respect for commercial purpose. It is submitted that the distance between the lands/plots situated within Sector 16 and Sector 21 and that of Village Sargasan is of 2 ½ km., and in between there are so many sectors and even the sectors which were just nearer to Village Sargasan i.e. Sector 4 where even not developed. Therefore even the upset price/market price with respect to the smaller plots situated within Sector 16 and Sector 21 relied upon by the claimants cannot be said to be comparable sale instances at all. Therefore there is no question even considering the same and even after appropriate deduction ranging between 20% to 50%. It is further submitted that even the aforesaid aspect has been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1983 of 1992 Exh.31 and the Division Bench of this Court has FA/4069/2007 22 JUDGMENT specifically held that the sale instances in respect of developed small plots in Sectors 11, 16, 21 and 22 cannot be relied upon and the same cannot be said to be comparable sale instances. It is submitted that therefore even the decision of the Division Bench relied upon on behalf of the claimants PATEL BHAGABHAI SHAMALBHAI VS. THE THIRD SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, reported in 1991(1) GLR 613 cannot be made applicable.

6.6 Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General has also relied upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND OTHERS reported in (2008) 1 SCC 554 with respect to the difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. It is submitted that as held and observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that an area which is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly FA/4069/2007 23 JUDGMENT when vast tracts were acquired for development purpose.

6.7 Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General has submitted that, on perusal of the deposition of the lone witness examined on behalf of claimants one Shri Vikrambhai Somabhai Patel (Exh.17), the State Government's witnesses Shri Ashwinkumar Bholanath Jani (Exh.24) and Shri Ahmed Hussain Malvat (Exh.27), the following aspects have emerged. (i) The claimants have not produced any evidence as regards yield or fertility of the land in question or the crop which has been taken from the land in question. Nothing is on record whether the claimants were carrying on agriculture activities with scientific method or using seeds and fertilizer of high value. (ii) Distance between the lands in question of Sargasan Village and the lands of Village FA/4069/2007 24 JUDGMENT Dholakuva is about 4 to 5 kms. (iii) Distance between the lands in question and the Village Sargasan is about 2.0 km. (iv) Lands in question is not on Gandhinagar Sarkhej Highway. Survey Nos. 61, 62, 63 of the lands in question are located about 800 mtrs. away, whereas Survey Nos.64/1 to 64/4 are 500 mtrs. away from the said highway. (v) Even at the time of the recording of oral evidence in the matter in December 2005, the lands in question are not located in Gandhinagar Township, there are no facilities like roads, drainage, water, light etc. (vi) The actual Gandhinagar Township is at a distance of 3 to 4 kms. away from the lands in question.

6.8 It is also further submitted that it is factually incorrect on the part of the claimants FA/4069/2007 25 JUDGMENT to contend that there were no sale instances of the lands situated in the vicinity of the land in question, just prior to the issuance of Section 4 Notification dated 20.5.1993 with respect to the lands in question. It is submitted that the Statement “C” annexed to the award dated

25.7.1996 (Exh.15) of Land Acquisition Officer clearly shows at Serial Nos.9 to 13 that there were sale transactions in respect of surrounding lands during the period from 1991 to 1992 at the rates varying from Rs.15.88 to Rs.17.21 per sq.mtrs.

6.9 Shri Kamal B.Trivedi, learned Advocate General has also relied upon the following decisions: (i) SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, BYDA, BAGALKOT VS. MOHD.HANIF SAHIB reported in AIR 2002 SC 1558. (ii) KASTURI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA reported in (2003) 1 SCC 354. FA/4069/2007 26 JUDGMENT (iii) V.HANUMANTHA REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AND MANDAL R.OFFICER reported in AIR 2004 SC 1185. (iv) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR VS. SARAT CHANDRA BISOI AND ANOTHER reported in (2000) 6 SCC 326.

6.10 Relying upon the aforesaid various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as relying upon the judgment and order dated

14.9.1994 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeals No.704 to 729 of 1993 which is produced at Exh.31; the judgment and order dated 16.2.1995 of the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeals No.580 to 595 of 1995 at Exh.32 and the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 16.2.2005 by the very Reference Court in L.A.R. Nos.839/98 to 841/98 and others which is produced at Exh.48, and by making above submissions, learned Advocate General has requested to allow the present appeals by submitting that at the most the market price of the acquired lands in question can be FA/4069/2007 27 JUDGMENT considered at Rs.231/- per sq.mtr. It is also submitted that in view of the above the First Appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement of the amount of compensation also requires to be dismissed.

All these appeals are opposed by Shri A.J.Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants. At the outset, it is required to be noted that Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants has fairly conceded that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court passed in Land Reference Cases No.6/04 and 36/04 with respect to the lands acquired of Village Dholakuva at Exh.41 could not have been relied upon by the Reference Court. It is fairly conceded by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court with respect to the acquisition of the lands of Village Dholakuva at Exh.41 cannot be considered as a comparable instance for arriving at a fair FA/4069/2007 28 JUDGMENT market value of the lands in question. However, he has submitted that as there are other comparable sale instances produced on behalf of the claimants at Exh.47, 57, 58, 59 and 64 which can be said to be comparable instances, and therefore, it is requested to fix and arrive at a fair market value relying upon the said sale instances. It is submitted that as there are other documentary evidences on record which can be relied upon, and on the basis of which a fair market price can be determined, and therefore, it is requested to consider the same.

7.1 Shri Patel, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants has relied upon the order of the Collector, Gandhinagar dated 28.7.1986 produced at Exh.47 and has submitted that a plot situated in Sector 16 within the Gandhinagar Township was sold in auction at the rate of Rs.3,001/- per sq.mtr., and the Collector, Gandhinagar approved the same. Shri Patel has also relied upon the order dated 5.2.1986 of the Collector, Gandhinagar approving the auction of a FA/4069/2007 29 JUDGMENT plot situated in Sector 21 Gandhinagar Township at the rate of Rs.2,415.76ps per sq.mtr., as on

5.2.1986. Shri Patel has also relied upon one another order dated 5.2.1986 of the Collector, Gandhinagar approving the auction of a plot situated in Sector 21 at the rate of Rs.3,311/- per sq.mtr. He has also relied upon the order of the Collector, Gandhinagar dated 28.7.1986 produced at Exh.59 approving the auction in respect of a plot in Sector 16, Gandhinagar, at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per sq.mtr. He has also relied upon one another order dated 5.12.1986 of the Collector, Gandhinagar at Exh.64 approving the auction in respect of a plot situated in Sector 21 Gandhinagar at Rs.2,415/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that the upset price fixed by the Collector, Gandhinagar with regard to the aforesaid plots was Rs.1,000/- per sq.mtr. It is submitted that even considering the upset price fixed by the Collector and not considering the actual auction price and by giving a reasonable deduction of a FA/4069/2007 30 JUDGMENT smaller plot and giving 10% rise per year, the market price of the lands in question would come to Rs.1,020/- per sq.mtr.

7.2 Shri Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original claimants has submitted that as per the Notification dated 16.10.1969 the lands of Village Sargasan comprising the site of capital of the State of Gujarat i.e. Gandhinagar. Relying upon the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer dated 18/19.1.1996, it is submitted that even as observed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in the said award the lands acquired were jirayat lands and fertile lands. It is submitted that even as per the award the lands acquired were fit for development. It is submitted that even the lands in question are nearer to Sector 3 of Gandhinagar Township and National Highway 8-C is passing near to the lands acquired.

7.3 Shri Patel, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants has heavily FA/4069/2007 31 JUDGMENT relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAVINDER NARAIN AND ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA reported in (2003) 4 SCC 481. It is submitted that, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision, there is no absolute prohibition against considering the rate fixed for smaller plots in the same vicinity and the same can be the basis for fixation of rate for large area acquired where there is no other material available. However, in such cases, necessary deductions/adjustments can be made while determining the prices.

7.4 Shri Patel, learned Advocate has also relied upon the following decisions with respect to the reasonable deductions/adjustments from the market price of the small plots as well as the necessary appreciation for every subsequent year. (i) KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, SAHASWAN, DISTRICT BADAUN THROUGH ITS SECRETARY VS. BIPIN KUMAR AND ANOTHER, (2004) 2 SCC 283 (para 8). FA/4069/2007 32 JUDGMENT (ii) SHARADAMMA VS. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, 2007 AIR SCW 1109 (paras 12 and 13). (iii) KASTURI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA, (2003) 1 SCC 354 (para 7). (iv) THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS. MALLA ATCHINAIDU AND OTHERS, 2007 AIR SCW 425 (paras 67 and 70). (v) VILUBEN JHALEJAR CONTRACTOR (D) BY LRS. VS STATE OF GUJARAT, 2005 AIR SCW

2107. (vi) SMT.KAUSALYA DEVI BOGRA AND OTHERS VS. LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER, AIR 1984 SC 892. (vii) LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS KRISHNA GOPAL LAHORI AND OTHERS, 2007 FA/4069/2007 33 JUDGMENT AIR SCW 7144 (paras 15 and 16). (viii) RAVINDER NARAIN AND ANOTHER VS UNION OF INDIA, (2003) 4 SCC 481 (para 7).

7.5 Relying upon the aforesaid decisions, it is submitted by Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants that, if the sale instances produced at Exh.57, 58 and 59 are considered to be the comparable sale instances which were of the year 1986, and considering the fair market price of the land sold in 1986 at Rs.1,000/- per sq.mtr., and deducting 40% being the smaller plots, it would come to Rs.600/- per sq.mtr., and then considering the date of notification under Section 4 in the present case of the year 1993 and giving 10% price rise for every year, the price rise would come to Rs.420/- and therefore the fair market value of the lands in question in the year 1993 would come to Rs.1,020/- per sq.mtr., and therefore, it is requested to determine the market price of the FA/4069/2007 34 JUDGMENT lands acquired at least Rs.1,020/- per sq.mtr.

7.6 Shri Patel, learned advocate has also relied upon the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of PATEL BHAGABHAI SHAMALBHAI VS. THE THIRD SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, AHMEDABAD reported in 1991(1) GLR p.613 with respect to the lands acquired of Village Vavol which is nearer to the lands acquired particularly the observations made by the Division Bench with respect to the potentiality.

7.7 Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing for the claimants has submitted that, so far as the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 14.9.1994 in First Appeals No. 704/93 to 729/93 produced at Exh.31 is concerned, the same cannot be considered to be a comparable instance for arriving at a fair market value of the lands acquired. It is submitted that in the said decision, the acquisition was of the year 1983, and even as observed by the Division Bench of FA/4069/2007 35 JUDGMENT this Court in the said decision, it was found by the Division Bench that at the relevant time Sectors 16, 21 and 22 were undeveloped lands and thereafter much water has flown and in between 1983 and 1993 much development has taken place in Sectors 16, 21 and 22 and therefore it is submitted that the judgment and order produced at Exh.31 cannot be considered as a comparable instance. It is also submitted that similarly the judgment and award dated 16.2.2005 of the Reference Court passed in L.A.R. Cases No.839/98 to 841/98, 311/98 & 332/98 ti 336/98 produced at Exh.48 also cannot be considered as a comparable instance, as against the said judgment and award the appeals are preferred before this Court. Therefore, it is requested to consider the sale instances produced at Exh.57, 58, 59 and to determine the market price of the lands in question at the rate of Rs.1,020/- per sq.mtr.

Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties. FA/4069/2007 36 JUDGMENT

At the outset, it is required to be noted that, the Reference Court while determining the market price of the lands in question at Rs.1,750/- per sq.mtr., has solely relied upon the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court dated 7.5.2005 passed in LAR Case No. 6/04 & 36/04 with respect to the lands acquired of Village Dholakuva which is produced at Exh.41. However, Shri Patel, learned advocate appearing for the claimants has fairly conceded that the Reference Court has committed an error in relying upon the decision of the Reference Court with respect to the lands acquired of Village Dholakuva produced at Exh.41. He has fairly conceded that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court with respect to the lands acquired at Village Dholakuva could not have been considered as a comparable instance to determine the market value of the lands of Village Sargasan. However, the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Shri A.J.Patel, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants have requested FA/4069/2007 37 JUDGMENT to determine the market price of the lands in question as on 20.5.1993 considering the documentary evidences already produced on record on behalf of the appellants as well as on behalf of the claimants and therefore this Court is considering the same to arrive at and determine the fair market price of the lands in question as on 20.5.1993.

On behalf of the original claimants, one Vikrambhai Somabhai Patel, one of the claimant of Land Acquisition Reference No.924/98 has been examined as a common witness on behalf of all the claimants and he has been examined at Exh.17. He has stated in the examination-in-chief that he has deposed that he is the owner of lands bearing Survey Nos.62, 64/3, 61 and 64/4 situated at Village Sargasan and his lands are acquired for the purpose of development of Gandhinagar Township. He has further deposed that his lands are situated at Sarkhej Gandhinagar Highway having good fertility. He has also deposed that his lands are irrigated lands and they were FA/4069/2007 38 JUDGMENT taking crops of juvar, wheat, vegetables etc., and that they were earning Rs.50,000/- per bigha per year. He has also deposed that there are facilities of Co-operative Mandli, Banks, Primary Schools etc. He has also deposed that the lands of his village and the lands of Gandhinagar are adjoining to each other. He has also relied upon the decision of the Reference Court i.e. learned Principal Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar with respect to the lands acquired of Village Dholakuva at Exh.41. He has deposed that lands of Village Vavol which are adjoining to his village are previously acquired for the development of Gandhinagar Township where the learned Principal Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar, has awarded Rs.210/- per sq.mtr. He has also deposed that his lands are having more potentiality as comparison of Village Vavol and the lands of village Vavol are situated interior portion from Gandhinagar Sarkhej Highway whereas his lands are situated adjoining to Gandhinagar Sarkhej Highway. In cross-examination he has admitted that he has not produced any agriculture FA/4069/2007 39 JUDGMENT bills. In cross-examination he has also admitted that he has not produced the documents with regard to the fact that his lands are more fertile.

On behalf of the appellants-original opponents one Ashwinkumar Bholanath Jani, Executive Engineer came to be examined at Exh.24 and one Ahmed Hussain Adambhai Malvat, Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer came to be examined at Exh.27.

From the bare perusal of the deposition of the above witnesses were examined at Exh.17, 24 and 27, what is emerging is that (i) the claimants have not produced any evidence as regards yield or fertility of the land in question or the crop which has been taken from the land in question, (ii) it has not come on record whether the claimants were carrying on agriculture activities with scientific method or using seeds and fertilizer of high value, (iii) FA/4069/2007 40 JUDGMENT distance between the lands in question and the Village Sargasan is about 2.0 kms., (iv) lands in question is not on Gandhinagar Sarkhej Highway. Survey Nos. 61, 62, 63 of the lands in question are located about 800 mtrs. away, whereas Survey Nos.64/1 to 64/4 are 500 mtrs. away from the said highway, (v) the lands in question are not located in Gandhinagar Township, and there are no facilities like roads, drainage, water, light etc., available with regard to the lands in question, (vi) Infocity/Government Plots have all came into existence in the year 2002 and are not located in Sargasan Village, (vii) Buildings of Vidhansabha, Civil Hospital and Collector's office, all are within Gandhinagar Township in Sector 10-A and Sector 12 respectively at a distance of 3 to 4 kms. away from the lands in question.

On behalf of the original claimants much reliance has been placed upon the sale instances produced at Exh.47, 57, 58, 59 and 64. On behalf FA/4069/2007 41 JUDGMENT of the appellants much reliance has been placed upon the documentary evidence produced at Exh.31, 32 and 48. These are the only evidences which are required to be considered by this Court for determining a fair market value of the lands in question.

The sale instance produced at Exh.47 is the order of the Collector, Gandhinagar dated

28.7.1986 approving the auction of Plot No.379 ad-measuring 200 sq.mtr., situated in Sector 16 at a price of Rs.3,001/- per sq.mtr., as on

28.7.86. Another sale instance at Exh.57 is the order of the Collector, Gandhinagar dated 5.2.86 approving the auction of Plot No.199 ad-measuring

131.25 sq.mtr., situated in Sector 21 in Gandhinagar at Rs.2,415.76 per sq.mtr., as on

5.2.86. Another document at Exh.58 is the order dated 24.2.86 of the Collector, Gandhinagar approving the auction in respect of Plot No.209 ad-measuring 131.25 sq.mtr., situated in Sector 21 at a price of Rs.3,311/- per sq.mtr., as on

24.2.86. Another sale instance relied upon by FA/4069/2007 42 JUDGMENT the claimants at Exh.59 is the order dated

28.7.86 of the Collector, Gandhinagar approving the auction in respect of Plot No.379 ad- measuring 200 sq.mtr., situated in Sector 16 in Gandhinagar at Rs.3,000/- per sq.mtr., as on

28.7.86 and the last but not the least sale instance relied upon by the claimants at Exh.64 is the order dated 5.12.1986 of the Collector, Gandhinagar approving the auction in respect of Plot No.199 ad-measuring 131.25 sq.mtr., in Sector 21 in Gandhinagar at Rs.2,415/- per sq.mtr., as on 5.12.1986. These are the sale instances relied upon on behalf of the original claimants.

It is required to be noted that all the aforesaid sale instances are of a very small plots ad-measuring 131.25 sq.mtr., to 200 sq.mtr., and that too they were in Sector 16 and Sector 21 of Gandhinagar Township and they were sold for commercial purpose. All the aforesaid small plots were developed plots with all the facilities like roads, drainage, water, light FA/4069/2007 43 JUDGMENT etc. It is also required to be noted at this stage that, in the case on hand, a large area of land i.e. 84399 sq.mtrs., of lands are acquired, and considering the Map produced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and which was on record, it appears that Sector 16 and Sector 21 are at a distance of 3 to 4 kms away and in between there are so many sectors and the aforesaid plots were actually in the Gandhinagar Township and at a much distance. The lands in question are just nearer to Sector 4 and between Sector 4 and lands of Village Sargasan, there are lands of Village Vavol i.e. the lands acquired with respect to the judgment and award produced at Exh.48. It is also required to be noted that the sale instances relied upon by the claimants i.e. 57, 58 and 59 are all of the year 1986. It is also an admitted position that even at the time of recording the evidence also there is no much development taken place in the village Sargasan. Therefore, what is required to be considered is whether the sale instances produced at Exh.47, 57, 58, 59 and 64 can be said to be FA/4069/2007 44 JUDGMENT comparable sale instances/comparable instances for determining the fair market value of the lands in question as on 20.5.1993. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithviraj Taneja (supra) in determining compensation the value fetched for small plots of land cannot be applied to the lands covering a very large area and that the large area of land cannot possibly fetch a price at the same rate at which small plots are sold.

15.1 Similar is the view taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravindra Narain (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the rates fixed for the smaller plots cannot be the basis to fix the market price with respect to the large area of the lands acquired. It is true that in the subsequent decision in the case of Ravinder Narain and others (supra), it is observed that when there is no other material, after necessary deductions/adjustments, the rates fixed for smaller plots can be compared. However, it is required to be noted that the FA/4069/2007 45 JUDGMENT decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the claimants is of smaller bench and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prithviraj (supra) is of a larger bench. Even accepting the submissions on behalf of the claimants that there is no absolute prohibition that the rates fixed for the small plots cannot be the basis for fixation of the rate and when there is no other material in an appropriate cases it will be open to the adjudicating court to make comparison of the prices paid for small plots of land subject to the necessary deductions/adjustments have to be made while determining the prices, in that case also one has to first consider whether the said sale instances of smaller plots can be considered as comparable instances ?

15.2 In the recent decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. KRISHNA GOPAL LAHOTI AND OTHERS REPORTED IN 2007 AIR SCW 7144, in para 18 it has been observed as under: FA/4069/2007 46 JUDGMENT

It can be broadly stated that the element of speculation is reduced to minimum if the underlying principles of fixation of market value with reference to comparable sales are made: (i) when sale is within a reasonable time of the date of notification under Section 4(1); (ii) it should be a bona fide transaction; (iii) it should be of the land acquired or of the land adjacent to the land acquired; and (iv) it should possess similar advantages.

15.3 It is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision that it is only when the aforesaid factors are present, it can merit a FA/4069/2007 47 JUDGMENT consideration as a comparable case. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also referred to and considered the decision in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer vs. T.Adinarayan Setty reported in AIR 1959 SC 429 and also the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Narain (supra) (relied upon on behalf of the claimants).

15.4 Therefore, considering the above decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the evidence on record and the facts stated hereinabove, the sale instances produced on behalf of the claimants at Exh.47, 57, 58, 59 and 64 cannot be said to be comparable instances/comparable cases for determining the market price of the lands in question as on

20.5.1993. Once it is held that the aforesaid sale instances at Exh.47, 57, 58, 59 and 64 cannot be considered to be a comparable sale instances/comparable case, there is no question of considering the same after appropriate deduction. The aspect of deduction is required FA/4069/2007 48 JUDGMENT to be considered only in a case where the sale instances of a small plots are comparable sale instances. Under the circumstances the submissions made on behalf of the original claimants to consider the sale instances at Exh.47, 57, 58, 59 and 64 to arrive at and determine the fair market value of the lands in question after necessary deductions and giving further 10% rise for every year cannot be accepted.

15.5 The aforesaid sale instances at Exh.47, 57, 58, 59 and 64 cannot be considered as a base to determine the fair market price of the lands in question as on 20.5.1993.

Now so far as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patel Bhagabhai Shamalbhai (supra) relied upon by the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants is concerned, it appears that the acquisition in the said case was of the year 1969 and it appears that the Division Bench in the FA/4069/2007 49 JUDGMENT said case has relied upon certain aspects and the development which has taken place much after the acquisition and possibly which has taken place at the time of judgment and award. Even the learned advocate appearing for the claimants has fairly conceded that the observations made by the Division Bench in the said decision are contrary to the various subsequent decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in so far as relying upon and/or considering the subsequent development after the notification under Section 4 of the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Patel Bhagabhai Shamalbhai (supra) will not be of any assistance to the claimants.

16.1 Now for determining the fair market value of the lands in question as on 20.5.1993, the other documentary evidences which remains to be considered and which are on record are the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 14.9.1994 in First Appeals FA/4069/2007 50 JUDGMENT No.704/93 to 729/93 produced at Exh.31; the judgment and order passed by Division Bench of this Court dated 16.2.1995 in First Appeals No.580/95 to 595/95 produced at Exh.32; and the judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar dated 16.2.2005 in L.A.R.Nos. 839/98 to 841/98, 311/98 & 332/98 to 336/98 produced at Exh.48.

16.2 Now so far as the judgment of the Division Bench dated 14.9.94 in First Appeals No.704/93 to 729/93 produced at Exh.31 is with respect to the lands ad-measuring 1,81,504 sq.mtrs., of Village Vavol with respect to the Notification under Section 4 dated 7.7.1983 whereby the Division Bench of this Court has determined the market value of the lands at Rs.50/- per sq.mtr. So far as the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 16.2.1995 in First Appeals No.580/95 to 595/95 produced at Exh.32 is with respect to the lands ad-measuring 2,14,433 sq.mtrs., of Village Vavol with respect to the Notification under Section 4 dated FA/4069/2007 51 JUDGMENT

19.2.1981 whereby the Division Bench of this Court has determined the market price of the lands at Rs.50/- per sq.mtr. So far as third instance/document relied on by the appellants- original opponents is the judgment and award of the very learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar Shri A.A.Shaikh dated 16.2.2005 with respect to the lands ad-measuring 53,962 sq.mtr., of Village Vavol with respect to the Notification under Section dated 13.8.1992 in which the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded the compensation at the rate of Rs.32/- per sq.mtr., which was increased by the Reference Court to Rs.210/- per sq.mtr. The said judgment and award is produced at Exh.48.

16.3 Shri Kamal Trivedi, learned Advocate General has submitted that if the judgment and order of the Division Bench produced at Exh.31 is considered as a comparable instance, in that case by giving 10% rise for every year, the market price of the lands in question as on 20.5.1993 would come to Rs.118/- per sq.mtr. He has FA/4069/2007 52 JUDGMENT submitted that if the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court produced at Exh.32 is considered as a comparable instance, in that case after giving 10% rise for every year the market price as on 20.5.1993 would come to Rs.150/- per sq.mtr. He has further submitted that if the judgment and award of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar produced at Exh.48 is considered as a comparable instance then in that case the market value of the lands in question as on 20.5.1993 after giving 10% rise for every year would come to Rs.231/- per sq.mtr. Therefore, it is the submission on behalf of the appellants that in any case the market price of the lands in question would never be more than Rs.231/- per sq.mtr at the most. It is submitted that the judgment and orders produced at Exh.31 and 32 are of Village Vavol just adjacent to the lands in question and even the judgment and award of the Reference Court produced at Exh.48 is also with respect to Village Vavol which is just adjoining to Village Sargasan. It is also submitted that the very learned Civil Judge FA/4069/2007 53 JUDGMENT (S.D.), Gandhinagar in the case of lands acquired in the year 1992 of Village Vavol which is just adjacent to the lands acquired in which the very witness Shri Vikrambhai Somabhai Patel who has been examined on behalf of the claimants and in the present case also the said witness has been examined, the Reference Court has determined the market price at Rs.210/- per sq.mtr., in the year 2005 and with respect to the present lands in question the Notification is of 1993, the very learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar has determined the market price of the lands in question at Rs.1,750/- per sq.mtr., against Rs.17/- per sq.mtr., determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer i.e. 100 times more than the market price determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

16.4 Considering the above, what is required to be considered now out of Exh.31,32 and 48 which would be the best comparable instance for determining the market price of the lands in question as on 20.5.1993. As stated above, so FA/4069/2007 54 JUDGMENT far as Exh.31 is concerned, it is with respect to the lands acquired for which Notification under Section 4 has been issued on 7.7.1983, and so far as Exh.32 is concerned, it is with respect to the lands acquired for which the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 19.2.1981. So far as Exh.48 is concerned, it is with respect to the lands acquired for which the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 13.8.1992. So far as present case is concerned, the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 20.5.1993. Therefore the judgment and award produced at Exh.48 with respect to the lands situated at Village Vavol can be said to be in the proximate time.

As held by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shivlal Keshavlal Shah vs. Additional Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 9 GLR 752 while determining the amount of compensation, similar awards passed by the Reference Court or the Land Acquisition Officer can be taken into consideration. We have also gone through the Map produced by the learned advocates for the respective parties as well as the Map produced on FA/4069/2007 55 JUDGMENT record to know the actual location of the lands with respect to the lands acquired at Exh.31, 32 and 48, and on considering the same in detail, it appears that so far as Exh.48 is concerned, it is with respect to the lands bearing Survey Nos.66/2, 67, 65 of Village Vavol which were also acquired for the development of Capital Project, Gandhinagar which are just adjacent to the lands in question acquired with only one boundary. So far as lands of Exh.31 are concerned, they are the lands just adjacent to the lands of Exh.48 also of Village Vavol, and so far as the lands of Exh.32, they are just nearer to the lands of Exh.31.

Considering the Map, it appears that the National Highway is not touching the lands in question but in between there are other survey numbers also, therefore it cannot be said that the lands in question are just touching the highway. In the recent decision in Lucknow Development Authority vs. Krishna Gopal Lahoti reported in (2008) 1 SCC 554, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: FA/4069/2007 56 JUDGMENT “A claimant who claims that his land is fully developed and nothing more is required to be done for developmental purposes, must show on the basis of evidence that it is such a land and it is so located. In the absence of such evidence, merely saying that the area adjoining his land is a developed area, is not enough particularly when the extent of the acquired land is large and even if a small portion of the land is abutting the main road in the developed area does not give the land the character of a developed area.

In 84 acres of land acquired even if one portion on one side abuts the main road, the remaining large area where planned development is required, needs laying of internal roads, drainage, sewer, water, electricity lines, providing civic amenities, etc. ... It must be remembered that there is FA/4069/2007 57 JUDGMENT difference between a developed area and an area having potential value, which is yet to be developed. The fact that an area is developed or adjacent to a developed area will not ipso facto make every land situated in the area also developed to be valued as a building site or plot, particularly when vast tracts are acquired, as in this case, for development purpose.”

16.5 Therefore considering the location of the lands in question as well as lands of Exh.31, 32 and 48, according to us, the judgment and award of the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar produced at Exh.48 can be considered to be the best and most suitable sale instances to determine the market value of the lands in question on all counts i.e. location wise as well as the date of notification etc. Even Exh.31 and Exh.32 can also be considered as a comparable instance. However, considering the time gap FA/4069/2007 58 JUDGMENT between the date of notification under Section 4 in those cases and the date of notification under Section 4 in the present case i.e. between 1981, 1983 and 1993, and considering the date of notification under Section 4 of the lands of Exh.48 dated 13.8.1992, the judgment and award produced at Exh.48 can be considered to be the best comparable instance. If the judgment and orders at Exh.31 and 32 are considered, and giving 10% rise for every year, the market price as on 20.5.1993 would come to maximum Rs.150/- per sq.mtr., and considering Exh.48 as a comparable instance and to take the same as base, the market price of the lands in question as on

20.5.1993 would come to Rs.230/- per sq.mtr. Unfortunately though the above comparable instances were available at Exh.31, 32 and 48, the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar has neither referred to it and nor dealt with the same. Learned advocate appearing on behalf of the claimants had given the numbers of First Appeal Nos.3152/05 to 3196/05 in support of his submission that against the judgment and award of FA/4069/2007 59 JUDGMENT the Reference Court produced at Exh.48 which has been relied upon by the appellants, the claimants had preferred First Appeals and therefore it was submitted that the judgment and award of the Reference Court produced at Exh.48 should not be relied. However, on verification, it is found that the said First Appeals are against some other judgment and award passed by some other Reference Court and they are not the First Appeals against the judgment and award of the Reference Court produced at Exh.48. Therefore nothing is on record that any appeal is pending before this Court against the judgment and award of the Reference Court at Exh.48. Under the circumstances, the submissions on behalf of the claimants that the judgment and award of the Reference Court produced at Exh.48 cannot be relied upon cannot be accepted.

16.6 At this stage also it is required to be noted that in L.A.R.Cases No.839/98 to 841/98, 311/98 & 332/98 to 336/98, one Vikrambhai Somabhai Patel was examined on behalf of the FA/4069/2007 60 JUDGMENT claimants and on behalf of the State, one Ahmed Hussain Adambhai Malvat, Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer was examined. In the present case also the same witness Vikrambhai Somabhai Patel who was one of the claimant in the aforesaid L.A.R.Cases No.839/98 to 841/98, 311/98 & 332/98 to 336/98 at Exh.48, and one of the claimant in the present case has been examined on behalf of the claimants, and on behalf of the State the very Ahmed Husain Adambhai Malvat, Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer has been examined and still the very learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar Shri A.A.Shaikh with respect to the lands situated at Village Vavol just adjacent to the lands in question i.e. with respect to the lands bearing Survey Nos.66/2, 67 and 65 and other lands vide judgment and award dated

16.2.2005 has determined the market price at Rs.210/- per sq.mtr., and the very learned Judge by the impugned judgment and award dated

11.10.2006 with respect to the lands bearing Survey Nos.62, 64/4, 63, 64/1, 64/3 of Village FA/4069/2007 61 JUDGMENT Sargasan which are just adjacent to the lands of Exh.48 for which there is gap of only one year between the issuance of notification under Section 4 has determined the market price of the lands in question as of 20th May 1993 at Rs.1,750/- per sq.mtr. Therefore, considering the judgment and award passed by the the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar dated 16.2.2005 passed in main L.A.R. Case No.839/98 with respect to the lands of Village Vavol just adjacent to the lands in question with respect to the notification under Section 4 dated 13.8.1992 whereby the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar has determined the market price of the lands as on 13.8.1992 at Rs.210/- per sq.mtr., as a comparable instance, and considering the date of notification under Section 4 in the present case as on 20.5.1993 and giving 10% rise for every year, the market price of the lands in question as on 20.5.1993 can be determined at Rs.231/- per sq.mtr., and considering the same the market price of the lands in question as on 20.5.1993 is determined FA/4069/2007 62 JUDGMENT at Rs.231/- per sq.mtr., in stead of Rs.1,750/- determined by the Reference Court in the impugned judgment and award.

For the reasons stated above, the First Appeals No.4069 of 2007 to 4072 of 2007 are hereby partly allowed. The judgment and award passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar dated 11.10.2006 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.924/98 to 927/98 (Main L.A.R. No.924/98) are hereby modified to the aforesaid extent and it is ordered that the appellants to pay additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.214/- per sq.mtr. (Rs.231.00 minus Rs.17.00 = Rs.214/- per sq.mtr.) over and above the amount of compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Rest of the judgment and award with respect to interest and other statutory benefits available under the Land Acquisition Act i.e. under Section 23(1)(a), 23(2) and Section 28 of the Act is hereby confirmed. FA/4069/2007 63 JUDGMENT

In view of the above and consequently the cross appeals preferred by the original claimants being First Appeals No.4092 of 2007 to 4095 of 2007 which are filed for enhancement of the compensation requires to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( J.R. VORA, J. ) ( M.R. SHAH, J. ) syed/