LAWS(GJH)-2006-12-113

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. NARANBHAI RANCHHODDAS PATEL

Decided On December 01, 2006
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Appellant
V/S
NARANBHAI RANCHHODDAS PATEL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act" for short) read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are directed against the common judgment and award dated May 13, 2005 rendered by the learned Assistant Judge and Special Judge (L.A.R.), Ahmedabad (Rural) at Ahmedabad in Land Acquisition Case Nos. 70/99 to 82/99 by which the claimants have been awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs. 25.30 paise per Sq.Mtr. for their acquired lands, over and above the compensation offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Rs.3.75 paise per Sq.Mtr. for irrigated lands and Rs.2.50 paise per Sq.Mtr. for non-irrigated lands by his award dated February 07, 1998.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Narmada Yojana, Division No.16, Mehsana, proposed to the State Government to acquire the lands of Village Bamroli, TalukaViramgam, District-Ahmedabad for the public purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. On scrutiny of the said proposal, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of VillageBamroli were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, a Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued which was published in the Official Gazette on July 05, 1996. The land owners whose lands were proposed to be acquired, were thereafter served with the notices. They opposed the proposed acquisition. After considering their objections, a report as contemplated by Section 5A(2) of the Act was forwarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the State Government. On consideration of the same, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of Village Bamroli which were specified in the Notification published under Section 4 of the Act were needed for the public purpose of construction of the Narmada Canal. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was published in the Official Gazette on December 03, 1996. The interested persons were thereafter served with the notices for determination of the compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs. 50/- per Sq.Mtr.. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.3.75 paise per Sq.Mtr. for irrigated lands and Rs.2.50 paise per Sq.Mtr. for non-irrigated lands by his award dated February 07, 1998. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was totally inadequate. Therefore, they submitted applications under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer their cases to the Court for the purpose of determination of just amount of compensation payable to them. Accordingly references were made to the District Court, Ahmedabad which were registered as Land Acquisition Case Nos. 70/99 to 82/99.

(3.) The Reference Court in Paragraph 7 of the impugned award has mentioned that witness Naranbhai Ranchhoddas Patel had tendered evidence on behalf of the claimants at Exhibit 31, at whose instance the Land Acquisition Case No. 71/99, was registered, was examined at Exhibit 31 on behalf of the claimants. The said witness mentioned in his testimony that the lands acquired were highly fertile and that the claimants were able to raise crops of Cummin Seeds, Cotton, Jovar, Til, Millet, Wheat etc. According to the said witness, each claimant was earning net income of Rs. 35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per year per Vigha from the sale of agricultural produces. After stating that Village-Bamroli was fully developed, it was claimed by the said witness that Kadi-Katosan, Bamroli-Balsaman, Bamroli-Dhodhalpur, Bamroli-Chalasan and Bamroli-Dangarva roads were passing through Village-Bamroli. The witness stated that the railway station was situated at a distance of 2 K.M. from the lands acquired and that the lands of the Village-Bamroli were similar in all respects to the lands of Villages-Dangarva and Madrisana. The witness produced the previous award of the Reference Court relating to the lands of Village-Madrisana at Exhibit30 in support of the claim for enhanced compensation made by the claimants. In order to substantiate his claim that the lands acquired in the instant case were highly fertile and that the claimants were able to raise different crops thereon, the witness produced 7/12 extracts relating to the lands acquired at Exhibits 16 to 29. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the appellants. The record shows that the witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the appellants, but nothing substantial could be elicited nor the assertion made by him that the lands of Village-Bamroli and the lands of Village-Madrisana were similar in all respects could be demonstrated to be untrue.