PUNJAJI BHEMAJI KHANT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This group of appeals was called out on 10 -9 -2001, and the appeals were heard for sometime. Before us the judgement rendered by the Division Bench against the impugned award was placed. Thereafter the appeals were adjourned at the request of the learned advocate for the appellants. Thereafter, on 11 -9 -2001, the matters were placed for hearing. However, learned advocate for appellants was not present when the matters were called out. Even today, in the first session, when these matters were called out, he was not present. Even in the second session, he has chosen not to remain present. Therefore, there is no alternative but to pass an order on merits.

(2.) These appeals are filed against the award made by Assistant Judge, Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar in Land Reference Cases No. 3876/89 to 3914/89 on 9th February, 1999. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") was published on 26 -6 -73 for acquisition of land situated at village Pujarana Muvada, Taluka Malpur, Dist. Sabarkantha, for Vatrak Jalagar Yojna. After following the procedure under the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 3300/ - per Acre for irrigated lands and Rs. 2200/ - per Acre for non -irrigated lands. Against the impugned award made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Reference Applications were preferred being Land Reference Cases No. 3876 to 3914/89. On appreciation of evidence, Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 145/ - per Are for non -irrigated lands and Rs. 117.50 per Are for irrigated lands. The State being aggrieved by the aforesaid award passed by the Reference Court, preferred First Appeals No. 2850/01 to 2874/01. It is required to be noted that the claimants being aggrieved by the said award, preferred First Appeals No. 4846/99 to 4877/ 99. Thus, it is clear that against the impugned award, the claimants as well as the State both have preferred appeals, and, the claimants' appeals were filed prior in time. When there are cross appeals, ordinarily, appeals are required to be heard and disposed of together by a common judgement. But in the instant case, it appears that before the Division Bench (Coram : J. N. Bhatt & Akshay Mehta, JJ), not only the Government Pleader but also Mr. G. M. Amin, learned advocate appearing for the claimants in the First Appeals filed by claimants as also in the appeals filed by the State argued for the respondents in the appeals filed by the State. The Court by judgement dated 9 -7 -2001 disposed of the appeals on merits. Copy of the judgement is also produced before us. In para 5 of the said judgement rendered in First Appeal No. 2850 to 2874/01, the Division Bench has pointed out as under.

(3.) Had it been the case that the appeals were summarily dismissed even in presence of the other side or appeals were dismissed summarily in the absence of the other side or was dismissed for non -prosecution, the situation would have been different because then, in such situation, it cannot be said that the judgement was delivered after hearing both the sides. The other side had no occasion to place his case before the Court. In this group, the claimants preferred appeals being First Appeal Nos. 4846/99 to 4877/99. It is thereafter the State has preferred the appeals. When the appeals of the State were heard first, the Court considered the arguments of both the sides and it was open for the learned advocate to point out that his appeals are pending and therefore, the Court should wait for his appeals as claimants are claiming more amount. But possibly realising that no injustice is caused, the learned advocate may not have thought it proper to point out to the Court. We are sure that if he would have pointed out, the Division Bench, either would have called for the appeals or would have adjourned the matters and would not have disposed of the matters. What is observed by Division Bench in para No. 1 makes it clear that the learned advocate for the claimant requested to take up the matters. The Division Bench in para -1 stated as under.