SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER Vs. HARMAN DAHYABHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Addl. GP Mr. UA Trivedi for Special Land Acquisition Officer and learned Advocate Mr. Trilok J. Patel for claimants. In these civil applications, rule is issued by Division Bench of this Court on 20.4.2006, ordered to be heard with First Appeal No. 1996 of 2005.

(2.) THESE applications have been filed by applicant during pendency of first appeal praying to permit applicant to produce additional evidence before this Court in pending appeal. Documents upon which applicant is relying were not produced before reference Court inspite of exercise of due diligence. Applicant Special Land Acquisition Officer has produced village map of village Asoj, Taluka Vadodara, District Vadodara as Annexure A to this application and applicant wants to produce same as an evidence in aforesaid first appeals. According to applicant, as per aforesaid map, it is very clear that all lands which are acquired for purpose of construction of Narmada Canal are not separated/severed in two pieces. Applicant has also submitted that land acquisition officer has also taken into consideration aforesaid aspect and therefore, at the time of passing an award, land acquisition officer has specifically stated that out of 29 block numbers of land in 11 block numbers of land are divided into two parts because of construction of aforesaid canal and, therefore, in Schedule F of award, land acquisition officer has awarded compensation to concerned claimants for severance of land. Applicant has also submitted that from map at annexure A, it is clear that reference Court has wrongly awarded compensation to all claimants at rate of 1/6 of market value for severance of land. It is also submitted by applicant that at the time of passing award, land acquisition officer has also considered sale deeds for period between 23.2.79 to 23.2.84 i.e. For a period of last five years from date of issuance of notification under section 4. Applicant has also submitted that land acquisition officer has considered total 11 such sale deeds which are specifically stated in award. Applicant has further submitted that aforesaid sale deeds and index in village form No. 2 were not produced before learned trial Court though due diligence was taken. Applicant beg to submit certified copy of sale deed dated 28.3.80 entered into between Natavarlal Maganlal Patel on one hand and Kamlaben Bhailalbhai, Rameshbhai Bhailalbhai, Jayantibhai Bhailalbhai, Gopibhai Bhailalbhai. Applicant submitted that aforesaid four persons have sold their land bearing survey Nos. 339, 342, 343/1, 343/2 to Natavarlal Maganlal Patel. At annexure B, certified copy of sale deed entered into between Kamalaben Bhailalbhai and others and Natavarlal Patel on 28.3.1980 is produced which is registered with Sub Registrar, Vadodara -1 vide Registration No. 2325. Applicant has also sought to produce certified copy of village form No. 2 in which details with regard to sale deeds entered into between concerned parties of village Asoj for period between 23.2.1979 to 23.2.1984 are stated. Applicant has submitted that aforesaid details have been considered by Land Acquisition Officer at time of declaring award under Section 11 of Act but aforesaid index was not produced before reference Court and, therefore, applicant is praying to permit applicant to produce aforesaid documents namely index village form No. 2 before this Court in aforesaid appeals for just decision of this court. It is also submitted by applicant that village Manjusar is an adjoining village to Asoj. Map of village Asoj and Manjusar is at annexure A and it is very clear that Manjusar is adjoining to village Asoj. There is land acquisition in village Manjusar and notifications under Section 4 had been published on 19.1.84 and in respect of village Asoj, notification under Section 4 has been published on 23.2.84. Applicant has submitted that in acquisition of lands of Manjusar village, in compensation case No. 3/84, compensation has been awarded by land acquisition officer,Unit -4 Baroda Rs. 1.70 per sq. mtr. has been awarded by Land Acquisition Officer and reference Court awarded Rs. 5.00 per sq. mtr. In case of acquisition of lands of village Manjusar. In present case, in compensation case No. 85/84 for village Asoj,land acquisition officer has awarded Rs. 2.50 against which District Court,Baroda has awarded Rs. 21.00 per square meter and hence it is very much clear that in adjoining village, district Court has awarded Rs. 5.00 per square meter and in present case, it has been Rs. 21.00 per square meter, hence, reference Court has awarded 400 times more compensation in this case. In short, submission is that applicant may be permitted to produce annexure A, B, C, D and E on record being additional evidence in First Appeal No. 1996 to 2017 of 2005.

(3.) I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates and both parties are having award of nearby village and submitted that in present case of award of Rs. 21.00 is made which is unreasonable and arbitrary. According to my opinion, appeals have been preferred by State of Gujarat and Land Acquisition Officer against award made by reference Court wherein reference Court awarded total compensation of Rs. 18.50 ps. Additional compensation over and above compensation of Rs. 2.50 ps. Awarded by land acquisition officer.