In a significant legal case concerning land acquisition compensation, the Gujarat High Court has provided a decisive ruling on the Village Hadiyol matter. The dispute, involving valuation issues and potential land use considerations, has been closely examined by the court. Stay tuned to learn more about the verdict and its impact on the involved parties.
Facts
- The original claimants for the land acquisition in village Hadiyol produced sale instances and witness testimony.
- The Appellant owns land in village Agion acquired by Gujarat Electricity Board for construction purposes.
- The compensation claimed included Pakka Well and Engine Room with submersible pump.
- The Valuer reports, Exhibit-50 and 51, were submitted for valuation of the Engine Room.
- A Land Reference Case No.4274 of 1989 arose from the acquisition proceedings of Jivabhai Bhagabhai’s land in Hadiyol.
- The compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was contested by the Appellant due to low valuation.
- Surrounding development and potentiality of the land were factors not considered in the compensation assessment.
- The prevailing market rates and potential non-agricultural use were also not factored into the compensation amount.
- The Appellant was dissatisfied with the awarded compensation due to undervaluation and lack of consideration for land potential.
- The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded prices of Rs.220/- per Are for Block No.461, Rs.215/- per Are for Block No.462 and Block No.463, and Rs.1/- per Are for waste land.
Arguments
- The appellants contended that the amount fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is just and proper, and the village was not fixed for development.
- Original claimants sought additional compensation for various aspects like super structure, pipelines, trees, and standing crops on the land.
- Witnesses’ cross-examinations were highlighted by the learned Assistant Government Pleader to challenge claims of the original claimants.
- Contention was made by original claimants regarding the fertility and quality of the land under acquisition not being properly considered in fixing compensation.
- The distance between villages and lack of industrial/commercial development were emphasized by the respondents in rejecting additional compensation claims.
- Sale instances and valuation reports were presented by both parties to support their respective claims.
- The findings of the Assistant Judge, Himatnagar in the Land Reference Case No.942 of 1990 were deemed justifiable based on evidence presented.
- Special Land Acquisition Officer published the award on 17.01.1989 awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.220/- per Are and Rs.1/- per Are for waste land.
- Original claimants filed an application under Section 18 of the Act as they believed the compensation was too low.
- Oral evidence was provided by the appellants and witnesses were examined.
- Claim of the original claimants was for trees, Engine Room, pipelines, etc.
- Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that the compensation awarded was justified based on sale deed Exhibit-44.
- Land being Block No.462-463 of village Agiol Taluka Himatnagar District Sabarkantha was acquired for construction of 220 KV power Station and staff quarters.
Analysis
- The learned Assistant Judge relied on valuation reports prepared by the Gujarat Electricity Board Officer based on the Schedule of Rates (SOR).
- The valuation reports from a private Engineer used by the original claimants did not mention the usage of the different constructed portions.
- The Land Reference Case No.4274 of 1989 for village Hadiyol awarded compensation at Rs.3000/- per Are.
- The distance between village Hadiyol and Motipur was highlighted in cross-examination.
- Sale instances heavily relied upon by the original claimants were examined with scrutiny.
- Lack of evidence regarding developed commercial activities around the acquired land was noted.
- The time gap between notifications under Section 4 and the date of sale deed was considered in assessment.
- Original claimants failed to provide positive evidence regarding market rate at the time of notification.
- The documentary evidence included two sale deeds, valuation reports, and a decision from Land Reference Case No.4274 of 1989.
- Development aspects of the acquired land and discrepancies in evidence related to it were discussed.
- Specific measurements and details from registered sale deeds were taken into account for comparison.
- No compensation was pursued for Well, Pipelines, and Trees during the hearing.
- Development charges were calculated considering the residential and power station construction aspects of the acquired land.
- The analysis focused on the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence to determine compensation.
- Reports and witnesses were found to be lacking detailed assessment of construction valuation items.
- Time gap between the registration of sale deed at Exhibit-114 and the date of land acquisition notification was approximately six years.
Case Title: DHARMABHAI BHAICHANDBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/FA/3665/1999
