SPL LAQ OFFICER Vs. DAHYAJI HIRAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned AGP, Ms.Manisha Narsinghani for the appellants and learned counsel, Mr.A.J.Patel for the respondents in appeals as well as on cross objections.

(2.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the claimants, Mr.Patel that the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is very meagre when comparing with the fertility of the land and irrigation facilities available in these lands. The comparable sale instance of the adjoining land of Antroli, Taluka Kapadvanj, has also not been considered in arriving at a conclusion before awarding compensation to the claimants though it is situated 2 km away from the acquired lands. He has not considered the settled principles while determining the value of the acquired land. Relying on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered on 30-4-1999 in First Appeal No.4682 of 1998 to First Appeal No.4807 of 1998, it is requested that the award as passed in respect of the lands of Village Antroli by this Court may be passed qua the lands of the claimants. Alternatively, it is submitted that the claimants may be awarded interest on the aggregate amount including solatium, if their cross objections are not to be allowed by this Court.

(3.) It is submitted by learned AGP, Ms.Manisha Narsinghani for the appellants, that commercial potentiality and fertility of land of Village Mahammadpura, Taluka Kapadvanj is not as that of Village Antroli and the irrigation facilities available in Mahammadpura is also not good as that of Antroli. It is further submitted that as far as the notification under Section 4 is concerned, it was published in 1990 in respect of land of Antroli while that of Mahammadpura, it was published in 1989. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled to get benefit as per the award passed in respect of land of Village Antroli. In view of the above, it is submitted that though the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is just and adequate, the Reference Court committed error in enhancing the amount. Hence, the appeals are required to be allowed and the cross objections be dismissed.