EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. MERUJI SURSANGAJI

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 9, 2005, rendered by the learned Assistant Judge and Special Judge (LAR), Ahmedabad (R) at Ahmedabad, in Land Acquisition Case No.779 of 1998 to Land Acquisition Case No.800 of 1998, by which, the claimants have been awarded additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.15.60 ps. per sq.mt. for their acquired lands over and above the compensation offered to them by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at the rate of Re.0.60 ps. per sq.mt., by his award dated September 11,1996.

(2.) The Executive Engineer, Narmada Project, Goraiya Branch Canal, Gandhinagar, proposed to the State Government to acquire the lands of village Boska, Taluka: Detroj, 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 village Boska were likely to be needed for the said public purpose. Therefore, a notification under Section 4(1) of the Act was issued, which was published in the official gazette on April 18, 1994. The land owners were thereafter served with notices under Section 4(1) of the Act. On service of notice, they opposed the proposed acquisition. After considering their objections, the Special Land Acquisition Officer forwarded his report to the State Government as contemplated by Section 5A(2) of the Act. On consideration of the said report, the State Government was satisfied that the lands of village Boska, which were specified in the notification published under Section 4(1) of the Act, were needed for the public purpose of construction of Narmada Canal. Therefore, a declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made which was published in the official gazette on February 16, 1995. The interested persons were thereafter served with notices for determination of compensation payable to them. The claimants appeared before the Special Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq.mt. However, having regard to the materials placed before him, the Special Land Acquisition Officer, by his award dated September 11, 1996, offered compensation to the claimants at the rate of Re.0.60 per sq.mt. The claimants were of the opinion that the offer of compensation made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was totally inadequate. Therefore, they filed applications under Section 18 of the Act requiring the Special Land Acquisition Officer to refer their cases to the Court for determination of just amount of compensation payable to them. Accordingly, References were made to the District Court, Ahmedabad (R) where they were registered as Land Acquisition Case No.779 of 1998 to Land Acquisition Case No.800 of 1998.

(3.) On behalf of the claimants, witness Meruji Sursangji was examined at Ex.38. The witness mentioned that the lands acquired were irrigated lands and that each claimant was able to raise different crops in three different seasons. It was asserted by the witness that each claimant was earning Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- per year per Vigha from the sale of agricultural produces such as cotton, Juwar, millet, wheat, cumin seeds, etc. After mentioning that his village was fully developed, the witness asserted that the boundary of village Boska was adjoining to the boundary of village Panar. The witness further mentioned before the Reference Court that earlier, the lands of village Panar were acquired which were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case, including fertility. The witness also claimed that his village was more developed in comparison to village Panar. Though this witness was cross-examined on behalf of the appellants at length, nothing substantial could be elicited nor his assertion that the lands of village Panar which were previously acquired were similar in all respects to the lands acquired in the instant case could be demonstrated to be untrue.