AMIRBIBI HAJI ABDUL Vs. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of Gujarat issued a notifications under sec. 4 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 10-1-1961 which was published in the Gujarat Government Gazatte dated 2-2-1961 for the purpose of acquiring certain lands for the purpose of laying down a circular road for Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. The concerned parcels of lands were situated in the villages of Danilimda and Vasna. The Special Land Acqui- sition Officer issued notices to the interested persons and after hearing them declared his award by which he awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 6.00 per sq. metre and solatium at the rate of 15 per cent and also awarded interest to the claimants. The claimants being dissatisfied with the award requested the Special Land Acquisition Officer Ahmedabad to make a reference to the District Court Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol. The reference was accordingly made and the learned Assistant Judge at Narol heard the Reference Cases bearing Nos. 11/73 9 7 8 and 10/73.

(2.) It appears from the record before us that the learned Assistant Judge disposed of L. A. Case No. 11/73 by a separate judgment dated 23rd day of October 1974 and disposed of the other Land Acquisition Cases namely 9 7 8 and 10/73 by a separate judgment dated 19th day of October 1974 Being dissatisfied with the judgment dated 23/10/1974 the claimants in Land Acquisition Case No. 11/73 preferred First Appeal No. 408/75 and on behalf of the State Cross Appeal No. 792/75 is filed. In the land Acquisition Cases Nos. 9/73 7 8 and 10/73 the First Appeals respectively 308/75 309 310 and 311/75 were preferred on behalf of the State whereas in all of them Cross Objections have been filed by the respective claimants. Since all these cases arose out of a common notification issued by the State and also as it was the same acquisition proceedings we are deciding all these appeals by this common judgment. Incidentally the matters were heard also together by us.

(3.) In First Appeal No. 4Q8/75 the claimants have also assailed the decision of the learned trial Judge by which he disallowed the claim for injurious affection. The claimants submit that the learned trial Judge erred in holding that they were not entitled to any damages (that is to say comp- ensation) for the severance of their lands. They have claimed Rs. 3.00 per sq. metre as severance charges. The only evidence led by the claimants is the deposition of Abdulrehman Haji (Exh. 24) who deposed that Rs. 3 per sq. metre has been claimed for injurious affection for severance. The learned trial Judge observed in his judgment while discussing Point No. 5 that except the bare word of the claimant No. 4 Abdulrehman Haji there is no evidence to show the precise nature and extent of the injurious affection. He also observed that there is no evidence that the margin was required to be kept under the rules framed under the Land Revenue Code. Consequently he disallowed this claim for injurious affection. The learned Government Pleader Mr. Nanavati fairly accepted that on account of the splitting up of the claimants lands on account of the laying down of the road through the acquired lands in question there would certainly be injurious affection but his argument was that it was for the claimants to prove the extent of injurious affection and that if the claimants have chosen not to do so it would not be open to the Court to enter into the field of conjecture in determi- ning the extent of injurious affection. We have considered the argument of Mr. Nanavati and he is right when he submits that if the claimants had examined an expert he could have given us an idea about the extent of the depreciation in value which the remaining land is likely to suffer on account of injurious affection. But it cannot be gainsaid that even if the expert had been examined he would have to enter into a guess work to reach a precise opinion about the extent of severance. The value of the experts evidence is that it assists the Court in reaching a particular conclusion where technical assistance is necessary. However it cannot be laid down as a rule of law that where expert assistance is not available and where a reasonable guess can be made from whatever evidence that is on record the Court would be precluded from doing so only because the expert evidence is not led in a particular case. We have perused certified copy of the sketch which is to be found at Exh. 67. It discloses that the proposed road splits up the claimants land hearing Survey No. 376 into two parts and we further find that both of them are rendered deshaped. The southern piece is triangular in shape while the northern piece acq- uires an awkward shape. It also appears that a large chunk from the claimants land is acquired and the resultant two pieces are comparatively of very small size. The consequent injurious affection would consist of the fact that the remaining two pieces will have a reduced saleability in the market. In view of the fact that the land does not remain a compact and a composite block the potentiality of its residential and commercial development would also be affected. Now so far as the potential harm to the claimants is concerned even for an expert it would remain a guess as there cannot be an instance to provide guidance. In such cases nece- ssarily the injurious affection is required to be estimated on individual basis and a search for a guideline from an instance would be a futile attempt as indeed no instance can be found for a loss or damage which stands on a peculiar and special footing. In such circumstances we are of the view that damage suffered by the claimants cannot go uncompen- sated altogether and we must make our best endeavour to mete out jus- tice to them although we must be on a guard in doing so as our conclusion must be based on a broad basis and common sense inference. We are therefore of the opinion having taken the pros and cons of the questions into account that if we allow the claimants the compensation for injurious affection to the extent of Rs. 2.00 per sq. metre it would serve the purpose. The market value of the acquired land is reached on the basis of the instances and now our estimate of the injurious affection to the remaining portion works out at less than 1/6th of it and it appears to us that seeing from this point of view also our estimate is fair and reasonable