M.B.SHAH - (1.)The learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the appellant was not able to point out any defect or error of the learned Assistant Judge in appreciating the evidence. The learned Assistant Judge has considered the particulars of the sale instances and the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the claimants. The following. table would show the sale instances relied upon by the claimants: @@@ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sr Ex Particulars of Date of Sale/ Name of Price per No. No. land allotment or sec. 4 allottee sq. yd/Sq. notification mt. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1 17 Plot No. 185/B 14-11-73 Jagdish Oil & Rs. 20-70 G.I.D.C. Estate Cake Industries per sq. mt 2 18 Plot No. 180 22-9-72 M/s. Bhagwati Rs. 14-95 of GIDC Industries per sq. yd. 3 19 Plot No 181/1 22-9-72 M/s. Bhagwati Rs. 1-5-60 of GIDC Industries per sq. yd. 4 20 Consent award of lands 1-8-68 Rs. 5-per of village Naroda sq. yd. or. Hanspura Rs. 6.00per. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ @@@
(2.)The learned Judge has not relied upon sale instances which are at S. Nos. 1 to 3 mainly on the ground that the sale instances were of the plots developed by the G. I. D. C. in the industrial estate itself. But he has relied upon the aforesaid award Exh. 23. By no stretch of imagination can it be said that the reliance placed upon the said award by the learned Judge was in any way erroneous. That was the best method of determining market price of the lands. It is an admitted fact that since 1963-64 G. I. D. C. has established Industrial Estate at Naroda which is known as Naroda Industrial Estate as deposed to by the Assistant Chief Executive Officer of G. I. D. C. at Exh. 16. In this case acquiring body has not led any oral evidence. It has also not produced any documentary evidence to show that the award Exh. 23 dated 16-1-71 cannot be relied upon for fixing the market value of the lands which are acquired. In the said award Exh. 23 the lands of the same area and for the same purpose were acquired by notification dated 1/08/1968 which would be the relevant date for determining the market price while in the present acquisition proceedings the lands are acquired by notification under sec. 4 of the Act dated 24/09/1970 that is after lapse of 2 years. The learned Judge could have taken into consideration the fact that prices of the lands are increasing every year. Instead of giving any increased rate the learned Judge has awarded compensation at reduced rate. He has divided the lands into two parts one group of lands having road frontage and other group of lands which were not having any such advantage. In the previous award even though the survey numbers were more than 25 no such division was made. The situation of the lands under acquisition is far better than that of the lands which were acquired in the previous proceedings and this is clear from the map Exh. 24. Yet the learned Judge has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 5.00per sq. mt. for the lands having road frontage and at the rate of Rs. 4.00per mt. for other lands. In view of these facts no exception could have been taken by the acquiring body to the award of compensation made by the learned Judge. We therefore consider that there is no substance in these appeals filed by the State and we dismiss the on with costs.
(3.)From the facts stated above it is clear that without considering the substance of the matter the Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) G. I. D. C. Ahmedabad has preferred the group of aforesaid First Appeals before this Court by incurring huge expenses. It seems that nobody has bothered to apply mind and consider whether these would be fit cases for preferring appeals. We consider that this type of worthless litigation unnecessarily burdens the work of this Court causes staggering expenses to the public exchequer an. it causes lot of unnecessary harassment and costs heavily to the persons whose lands are acquired for no fault of theirs. Yesterday also we have disposed of a similar group of matters wherein there was no substance. In this set of circumstances it would be desirable for the Government to consider for having some proper high level cell in the Department which can scrutinise the matters properly and take appropriate decision for filing appeals. We therefore direct the office to send a copy of the judgment to the Revenue Minister for taking appropriate action. Appeals dismissed.