GENERAL MANAGER ONGC LIMITED Vs. CHAMANJI KUBERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These First Appeals are at the instance of the acquiring body, the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, in a proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act [hereinafter referred to as the Act. and is directed against a common judgment and award dated 6th February 2006 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gandhinagar at Gandhinagar, in Land Acquisition References No.12 of 2002 to 16 of 2002 by which the court below assessed the market value of the land at Rs.353/- per sq. mtr. instead of Rs.22/- per sq. mtr. assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. The Court below further awarded an additional amount of compensation at the rate of 12% on the additional amount of compensation under section 23(1-A) of the Act, solatium at the rate of 30% on the additional amount of compensation under section 23(2) of the Act and interest on the additional compensation at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking the possession or from the date of issuing notification under section 4 of the Act, whichever is earlier, for the first year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% per annum till realization under section 28 of the Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the filing of the above appeals may be summed up thus:-

(3.) Mr. Mehta, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-ONGC, strenuously contended before us that in arriving at the enhanced figure of compensation, the Reference Court committed substantial error of law in solely relying upon the judgment of the Reference Court itself in respect of lands of adjacent village Pethapur which, according to Mr. Mehta, although has attained finality, no evidence was produced by the referring-claimants showing that the quality of the lands of Pethapur village is similar to the lands of Pimplaj village. Mr. Mehta further contended that the onus is upon the claimants to prove the actual valuation and in the absence of convincing evidence, the valuation fixed in respect of the lands of village Pethapur cannot be relied upon simply because it is within a distance of 4 to 5 kms. Mr. Mehta, in this connection, has placed strong reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of BASANT KUMAR v. UNION OF INDIA, 1996 11 SCC 542and RANJIT SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH, 1993 AIR(SC) 225