STATE OF GUJARAT & 1 other(s) v. BHAILALBHAI BAPUBHAI ADATIYA DECD. THRO' HEIRS ASHOKBHAI & 6 other(s)

Judgment

#1. The present Appeals are filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Act’) against the common judgment and award dated

01.07.1999 passed under section 18 of the Act by the learned Assistant Judge, Amreli in Land Reference Case No. 39 of 1997 with another Land Reference Case No. 47 of 1997. The land situated at village Giriya, Tal. & Dist. Amreli have been acquired for public purpose of “Thebi Irrigation Project” by the State of Gujarat. The notification regarding the same was published in the daily newspaper – ‘Gujarat Samachar’ and ‘Nutan Saurashtra’ on 10.03.1995 and the same was notified in the Government Gazette on 14.04.1995 and the same was affixed on the concerned placed at Amreli on 17.05.1995 and notification under section 6 was published in the daily newspaper – ‘Jai Hind’ and ‘Nutan Saurashtra’ on 14.08.1995 and 13.08.1995 respectively and the same was notified in the Government Gazette on 28.07.1995 and the same was affixed on the concerned place at Amreli on 03.11.1995. The acquiring lands belong to all the claimants for “Thebi Irrigation Project”. The description of the land which is under acquisition are C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 mentioned in the respective land reference cases. The land was compulsorily acquired for the public purpose and the possession was taken by the State. Therefore, notices under section 9 of the Land Acquisition Act were served upon the interested persons and the claims were consolidated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and he has published his award for the compensation on 13.01.1997 and the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.800/- per Are for Jirayat Land and Rs. 1200/- per Are for Bagayat Land. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer the claimants have raised the dispute as contemplated under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act which were referred to District Court, Amreli and the same came to be registered as Land Reference Case No. 39 of 1997 and Land Reference Case No. 47 of 1997. The Reference Court passed an order of consolidation of all the reference cases considering the Land Reference Case No. 39 of 1997 as the main reference case. The Reference Court after

hearing the parties concerned vide judgment and award dated

01.07.1999, partly allowed both the reference cases and ordered to pay Rs.300/- per sq.mtr. to the claimants of Land Reference Case No. 39 of 1997 and Land Reference Case No. 47 of 1997. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 and award passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Amreli on

01.07.1999 the State has preferred the present Appeals under section 54 of the Act.

#2. The relevant factual aspect relating to the aforesaid land references are enumerated as under:-

2.1 That the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Rajkot has published the notification under section 4 in the daily newspaper – ‘Gujarat Samachar’ and ‘Nutan Saurashtra’ on 10.03.1995 and the same was notified in the Government Gazette on 14.04.1995 and the same was affixed on the concerned placed at Amreli on 17.05.1995 and notification under section 6 was published in the daily newspaper on 14.08.1995 and 13.08.1995 respectively and the same was notified in the Government Gazette on 28.07.1995. The land of the respective land reference case number is described as under: Sr. No. Land Reference Case No. Survey Number of land acquired Total Land Acquired Status of the 1 2 39 of 1997 81 paikee 35607 sq. mtrs. 47 of 1997 81 paikee 35505 sq. mtrs. Agricultural Agricultural C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022

2.2 At the outset it may be noted that for the very public purpose i.e. ‘Thebi Irrigation Project’ the appellants have acquired large chunk of lands falling withing the catchment area of the said scheme by different notifications which were subject matter of Appeals before this Court and ultimately before the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat & Anr. V.s Madhubhai Gobarbhai and Anr. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 125 has determined the market value of the lands of village Bixapur, Giriya as well as Amreli.

#3. Heard Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr. C. P. Chaniyara, learned advocate for the original claimants - respondents herein. Mr. Mehta, learned AGP relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat & Anr. (supra) and as well as the judgment rendered in the First Appeal No. 6802 of 1998 to First Appeal No. 6807 of 1998 by this Court on 23.08.2011 in the matter of State of Gujarat V.s Shambhubhai Vallabhbhai Kabaria and Ors. has submitted that the lands under acquisition would fall under Group-II as per the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court and therefore, C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 respondents – original claimants would be entitled to additional compensation lesser than which is awarded by the learned Reference Court. He has submitted that as the land of the respondents are agricultural land and therefore respondents are entitled to get Rs.160/- per sq. mtrs. for the agricultural land as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court. It was further submitted that even in the case of lands which are covered under the aforesaid judgments are in the same vicinity of village Giriya have been awarded lesser amount. Mr. Mehta, learned AGP as well as Mr. Chaniyara, learned advocate for the claimants have relied upon a sketch which was produced during the course of hearing in order to contend that as per the contention of Mr. Mehta, learned AGP that all the survey number of the near vicinity would fall within Group-II and he has contended that as per the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court the lands which are situated at Village Giriya and which are away from Amreli would fall under Group-II. Therefore, it was contended that all the lands of the respondents herein would fall under Group-II and are entitled to compensation at Rs.160/- per sq. mtrs. only. It was further pointed out that the lands which are inward in the reference cases are agricultural land. However, the Reference Court has wrongly considered and treated as if they are non-agricultural lands. Hence. Mr. Mehta, C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 learned AGP has submitted that the judgment and order passed by the learned Reference Court is bad in law and also erroneous on facts and therefore he prays to allow the First Appeal by reducing the amount awarded by the learned Reference Court to the extend of Rs.160/- per sq. mtrs.

#4. As against this, Mr. Chaniyara, learned advocate for the respondents – original claimants has submitted that as discussed by the learned Reference Court in the judgment, the lands are situated just adjacent to the highway and very near to the airport of Amreli. Hence, they are very potential lands. He further submitted that the learned Reference Court has submitted various aspects in the judgment by considering the sale instances for deciding the sale prices existing at the relevant time and has also rightly considered the various judgments of this Court reported in group of First Appeal Nos. 989 of 1998 to 995 of 1998. He has also submitted that the land of the present claimants – respondents are situated on Amreli – Rajkot highway and the said land is situated at about 1.5 kms away from Amreli City. The residential society area is also very nearby from the land of the claimants and hence submitted that there is potentiality to increase the price of the lands and he has further submitted C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 that the judgment of First Appeal No. 6802 of 1998 to First Appeal No. 6807 of 1998 dated 23.08.2011 which is relied by the learned AGP pertains to the notification under section 4 of the year 1992 and in the present case the notification is published in the year 1995. Mr. Chaniyara, learned advocate for the respondents – original claimants has relied on the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court:-  Ranjit Singh and Ors V.s Union Territory of Chandigarh reported in 1992 (4) SCC 659  Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot V.s Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib reported in 2002 (3) SCC 688  Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun V.s Bipin Kumar and Anr. reported in 2004 (2) SCC 283  Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer V.s Ramanjulu and Ors. reported in 2005 (9) SCC 594. Looking to the potentiality of the land and even assuming that in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat and Anr. C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 V.s Madhubai Gobarbhai and Anr. reported in 2009 (15) SCC 125, the land of the present claimants – respondents should be considered for Group-III and that should be as per the award of 1992 in which Rs.160/- per sq. mtrs. was awarded for the agricultural lands.

4.1 Learned advocate for the claimants further submitted that in the present acquisition, Notification under Section 4 is of year 1995 and in the case of Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat & Anr. (supra), the Notification under Section 4 was issued in the year 1992. It was therefore submitted that appropriate increase for three years in the compensation may be considered by the Court. He relied on the decision in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun (supra) and requested the Court to grant 15% increase per year in determining the compensation. It was submitted that the land of the claimants is situated in the vicinity of Amreli and it is also very near to the highway and the airport is also not far away. Looking to all the said aspects, it was submitted that 15% increase may be considered in the compensation.

#5. We have heard learned advocates for both the parties and we have also perused the record. We have also C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 verified various judgments cited by both the sides. We find that the decision in Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, Gujarat & Anr. (supra) of the Supreme Court will apply since the lands are of the same village. Furthermore, having regard to the time-gap in the Notification under Section 4, the claimants would entitle for appropriate increase in the compensation over and above awarded by the Apex Court.

5.1 In Ranjit Singh (supra) the time-lag was of one year between earlier Notification on the basis of which instant compensation was determined and the case under consideration. The Supreme Court observed with regard to the enhancement in the claim of compensation that though one year had elapsed from the previous Notification to subsequent Notification, the petitioners adduced no evidence to show that their acquired lands were entitled to be compensated with enhanced market value. However, in the present case, three years have elapsed and appropriate increase in the market value deserves to be considered. In this regard, the Supreme Court has in different decisions laid down that addition of 10% towards escalation would be the appropriate criteria for awarding higher rate of compensation. In Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer (supra) this principle was reiterated and it was held that in view of C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 difference of two years in terms of time-gap, there would be addition of 10% in the compensation.

5.2 In the instant case, we are inclined to consider 10% increase to be counted for every year for three years in the compensation. The rise of 15% as claimed on behalf of the claimants on the basis of decision in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Sahaswan, District Badaun (supra) is not well placed inasmuch as in that case the Supreme Court observed that there was a soaring rise in the prices of the land and the lands were found to be very high potential value, therefore 15% increase was found reasonable. In the present case, there is no such direct evidence in that respect. The aspect that the lands are near highway was also one of the grounds considered by the Court in arriving at the compensation at the rate of Rs.160/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, any extra consideration on that count is not warranted. At the same time, it could not be disputed that pace of development in recent times since 1992 and specially in the said area is high which factor may have to be counted to arrive at a just compensation. Considering the increase every year at the rate of 10% and adding such increase to Rs.160/- per sq. mtr., compensation comes to Rs.210/- per sq. mtr. approximately. We are inclined to give further rise giving due regard to the aspect of pace of C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 development in the area and for that if the compensation is awarded at Rs.230/- per sq. mtr., it would meet the ends of justice.

5.3. We find it proper that increase in compensation as discussed above is reasonable and to accordingly accept the case of the claimants in addition to the price of Rs.160/- per sq. mtrs. as mentioned in Group-III as mentioned in the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (15) SCC 125 and accordingly we find substance in the submissions made on behalf of both the sides. The submission made by the Assistant Government Pleader that the amount should be reduced in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (15) SCC 125 and which was followed by this Court in First Appeal Nos. 6802 of 1998 to 6807 of 1998 dated

23.08.2011 and accordingly we consider to reduce the amount from Rs.300/- per sq. mtrs. to Rs.160/- sq. mtrs. plus increase as above as per Group-III and we have also accepted the submissions made by Mr. Chaniyara, learned advocate for the claimants that the award passed in those matters are decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court, where the notification is published of the year 1992 and in the present case the notification under section 4 is published in the year C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022

5.4 Therefore, the claimants are entitled to get increase in the amount of Rs. 160/- per sq. mtrs. as fixed by the Hon’ble Apex Court for Agricultural land in Group-III. Accordingly, if we add 10% every year to that amount looking to the pace of development, the amount is put at potentiality of the land which will come to rounded Rs.230/- per sq. mtrs. Hence, we find that respondents – original claimants would be entitled to compensation as under: Sr. No. 1 2 Land Reference Case No. Survey Number of land acquired Village Status of the land Compensation (per sq. mtrs.) 39 of 1997 81 paikee Giriya Agricultural land Rs. 230/- 47 of 1997 81 paikee Giriya Agricultural land Rs. 230/-

#6. Consequently, the respondents – original claimants shall be entitled to the compensation as indicated hereinabove, along with other statutory benefits as awarded by the Reference under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act and the same are not interfered with, save and except to the extent that on account of reduction of principal amount of compensation such amount shall get proportionally reduced. Hence, the impugned judgment and awarded of the Reference C/FA/7929/1999 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 13/01/2022 Court shall stand modified accordingly.

#7. In the result, the Appeals are partly allowed to the aforesaid extent and the amount is fixed at Rs. 230/- per sq. mtrs. towards compensation to the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

#8. Registry to place a copy of this judgment in all the connected matters. Registry is also directed to send back the original record and proceedings to the Reference Court. (N.V.ANJARIA, J) SHRIJIT PILLAI (SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)