- (1.) THE present group of First Appeals has been filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch (hereinafter referred to as 'the Reference Court') in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.79 to 93 of 2010 (LAR No.92/2010 main) dated 25.01.2011 on the grounds stated in these appeals.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the lands of the original claimants situated at Village : Kora, Taluka : Jambusar, District : Bharuch have been acquired for the public purpose i.e. for the construction of Kora Minor 1 Canal under Narmada Project. The notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were published on 06.06.2006 and 25.12.2006 respectively. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed his award being Land Acquisition Case No.8/2006 under Section 11 of the Act on 21.10.2008 of Rs.250/ per Are for the acquired land. Against which, the original claimants made reference before the Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act being Land Acquisition Reference Nos.79 to 93 of 2010 for the additional compensation. The Reference Court by judgment and award dated 25.01.2011 granted additional compensation of Rs.70.58 ps. per sq.mtrs. for the acquired land, which has been assailed in the present group of First Appeals. Heard learned AGP, Shri P.P. Banaji for the appellants and learned counsel, Shri K.M. Sheth for the original claimants.
(3.) LEARNED AGP Shri Banaji submitted that the Reference Court has seriously erred in awarding compensation without appreciating the quality/fertility of the land and also the prospect of development. He submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has considered in its true perspective the fertility, situation, prevailing market price etc. for the purpose of compensation. He submitted that if the Reference Court does not agree then, it can disturb the order of the Land Acquisition Officer by special reason, which is not recorded. He submitted that the Reference Court has failed to consider that the claimants had to prove their claims and the claimants have failed to discharge their burden of proof with regard to the relevant aspects of the compensation like nature of land, situation, potentiality, development etc. He submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration five years sale instances of nearby area for the purpose of arriving at market rate, which has not been appreciated. It was submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon previous award in respect of another land, which cannot be said to be comparable instance and, therefore, has committed an error.;