BABUBHAI KHUSALDAS GANDHI Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CORPORATION AHMEDABAD
LAWS(GJH)-1966-8-18
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on August 18,1966

BABUBHAI KHUSALDAS GANDHI Appellant
VERSUS
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,(CORPORATION),AHMEDABAD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.G.SHELAT - (1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15th March 1960 of the learned Joint Judge Ahmedabad. The learned Judge was deciding by that judgment two compensation cases numbers 8 and 154 of 1958 which were heard by him together. By the above order the learned Judge awarded the claimant in compensation case No. 8 of 1958 an additional amount of Rs. 2741.50 (including solatium) and the claimant in compensation case No. 154/58 an additional amount of Rs. 1780.50 (including solatium). Both the claimants have come in appeal. First Appeal No. 1033/60 is by the claimant in compensation case No. 8/1958 and First Appeal No. 1028/60 is by the Claimant in compensation case No. 154/5s. Both these appeals have been argued together as the evidence in respect of both the cases was led in the lower Court only in one case namely compensation case No. 8/58 and both these appeals will therefore be disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) The lands acquired in both the cases are sub plots of final plot No. 106 of Maninagar Town Planning Scheme No. 4. They were acquired for the extension of Lallubhai Hospital at Maninagar. The notification under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (hereinafter) referred to as the Act) was issued in respect of both the cases on 7 Final plot No. 106 of Maninagar Town Planning Scheme of which the 1ands acquired from sub plots is a fairly largo final plot as shown by the sketch Ex. 36 and is divided into many sub plots. Of these the sub plots which are acquired are sub plot No. 43 which we the subject matter of compensation case No 8/58 (First Appeal No. 1033/60) and sub points Nos. 132 and 143 which were the subject matter of compensation case No. 154/58 (First Appeal No. 1028/60). The sub plot No. 43 measures 7278 sq. yards but has been stated in the award of Special Land Acquisition Officer as measuring 1580 sq. yards. On this difference a point of law arises to which we shall refer later. Sub plots Nos. 132 and 133 measure 753 and 799 sq. yards respectively in all 1552 sq. yards. Before the Special Land Acquisition officer the claimants in both the cases claimed compensation be these lands at the rate of Rs. 10.00per sq. yard. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 4.00per sq. yard for sub plot No. 43 and Rs. 5.50 per sq. yard for sub plots Nos. 132 and 133. The claimants sought Reference to the District Court under sec. 18 of the Act in respect of the amount of compensation so awarded. The claim made before the District Court was also at the rate of Rs. 101 _ per sq. yard for sub plots Nos. 132 and 133 and at the rate of Rs. 8/for rub plot No. 43 The learned point Judge who decided the cases awarded by his judgment and order above mentioned a rate of Rs. 4.50 per sq. yard for sub plot No. 43 and sq. 6-50 per sq. yard for sub plots Nos. 132 and 133. There was a corresponding award for the statutory solatium. In respect of sub plot No. 43 the lower Court made a further order in respect of its area. In the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer the area of this sub plot is mentioned as 7580 sq. yards. The lower Court found that it was in fact 7278 sq yards that is 302 sq. yards less. Therefore out of the additional amount of compensation awarded by the lower Court that Court deducted the amount in respect of 302 sq. yards which in its view had been wrongly awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer to the Claimant of sub plot No. 43. Against these orders of the lower Court the claimants have come in appeal.
(3.) At the hearing of these appeals Mr. S. K. Zaveri the learned advocate who argued the appeals on behalf of the claimants made only two submissions. One submission was that the lower Court committed an error of law and exceeded its jurisdiction in inquiring into the area of sub plot No . 43 under acquisition and determining it to be less than the area determined by the Special Lan Equation Acquisition Officer. The other was that the lower Court was in error in not relying on the instances relating So the market value proved before it and in not awarding to the claimants a rate of at least Rs. 7.00in respect of sub plot No. 43 and Rs. 8-50 paise in respect of sub plots Nos. 132 and 133.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.