SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER MAHI KADANA COMMAND AREA Vs. RATILAL NARSINHBHAI PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned advocate Shri Patel appearing on behalf of the claimant submitted that the whole approach of the learned Assistant Judge was wrong and the problem was not correctly appreciated. According to him there was a clear claim for a sum of Rs. 41400.00on head (A) where-there were two sub-divisions and the learned Assistant Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record and further fell into an error by not properly appreciating as to what was required to be considered at the time of passing of the award and what was not required to be considered. We have gone through the judgment of the learned Assistant Judge. The first error which is committed is that the learned Assistant Judge thought that the claimant had not preferred his claim as required under sec. 9 (j) of the Land Acquisition Act and therefore most of the amounts could not be considered because there was a bar created by sec. 25 (2) of the Land Acquisition Act. Section 25 (2) of the Act reads as under :

(2.) The learned Assistant Judge also fell into an error by referring to the award made by the Land Acquisition Officer. In paragraph 10 of his judgment the learned Assistant Judge observed as under :-

(3.) Before we close we clearly state that we have considered the claim of the petitioner in regard to the land by which be bad claimed a sum of Rs. 41400.00. That was the claim which he made in group A. Of course he divided this amount into two separate heads. But that would only mean that be calculated the capitalized value of lemon trees and after deducting that amount he valued the land which remained without trees. It could not be suggested that the land was acquired as if it had building potentiality and that by some evidence the correct market rate of the land which had building potentiality was arrived at. Unless that was done foundation which was necessary for the purpose of not awarding a separate sum for lemon trees as contemplated by The Collector of Thana v. Chaturbhai Radha Krishna 28 B.L.R. did not arise. This situation in the judgment has crept in because of loose drafting of the reference application and because of the learned Assistant Judge considered several portions of the award as evidence. If the drafting was prefect and the learned Assistant Judge had not fallen into error which he had fallen as discussed above the result would have been entirely different. Mofussil drafting can never be considered as a perfect drafting and no technical view could be taken on such drafting. Drafting is required to be construed broadly as understood by the claimant. He was a small agriculturist in a small village he had small piece of land he valued his land and trees in a particular way he went to the lawyer. Whatever he could explain ultimately that resulted in drafting which is the reference application That draft reference application could not be considered so strictly as to defeat the right claim of the claimant. Appeal dismissed: Cross objection allowed.