In a significant legal battle over land acquisition compensation, the Gujarat High Court issued a ruling on the dispute. The case involved the owners of land in Block No.461 at village Agion, Taluka Himatnagar, District Sabarkantha, who were seeking higher compensation for their property acquired for a power station project by Gujarat Electricity Board. Let’s delve into the details of the judgment and its impact on the involved parties.
Facts
- The land in question was acquired for the project of Gujarat Electricity Board for the construction of Sub-Station of 220 KV, power Station, and staff quarters.
- The Deputy Collector and Special Land Acquisition Officer acquired the land under Section 18 of the Act.
- The appellants are the owners of the land in Block No.461 at village Agion, Taluka Himatnagar, District Sabarkantha.
- A notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 03.07.1989, and the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 17.01.1989, fixing the price of the acquired land at different rates per acre for different blocks.
- The appellants were not satisfied with the award, primarily due to the low compensation amount and the alleged failure of the Land Acquisition Officer to consider the potential of the land for conversion and non-agricultural use.
Arguments
- The appellants, in support of their claim, provided sale instances and evidence of surrounding development in the prime location where the land is situated.
- The appellants argued that the Special Land Acquisition Officer did not consider relevant factors like surrounding development, potentiality of the land, and its location on the National Highway No.8.
- They claimed compensation not only for the land but also for the super structure of the Engine Room, pipelines, trees, and standing crops on the field.
- Instances of land purchase transactions and valuation reports were produced by the original claimants to support their case for higher compensation.
- Witness testimony and cross-examinations revealed details about the location of the village, distance to nearby towns, and the nature of surrounding industries.
- Differences in notification dates under the Land Acquisition Act were pointed out as a distinguishing factor in similar land reference cases.
- Claims regarding the fertility of the land, agricultural potential, and absence of certain factories in the area were highlighted during the proceedings.
- The appellants sought additional compensation which they believed was not adequately awarded by the Reference Court.
- Discrepancies in valuation reports and assessments made by different parties were brought to the court’s attention for consideration.
- The original claimants’ failure to provide certain documentary evidence regarding crop yields in the land was noted in the arguments put forward.
- Original claimants submitted that the agricultural land in village Agiol was acquired for a power station and staff quarters.
- Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at specific rates per Are for different blocks of land.
- Original claimants claimed compensation for Pakka Well and Engine Room with sub-mercible pump.
- Valuation reports regarding Engine Room were submitted as evidence by the original claimants.
- Original claimants argued that compensation awarded was too low and filed application under Section 18 of the Act.
- Original claimants claimed that prevailing market rates were not considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in awarding compensation.
- Land in Block No.461 of village Agiol was acquired for construction purposes on specific dates.
- Assistant Government Pleader supported the decision of the Assistant Judge in awarding compensation based on sale deed Exhibit-44.
- Appellants presented oral evidence and witnesses to support their case.
- Assistant Government Pleader stated that Assistant Judge properly considered evidence on record.
Analysis
- Original claimants did not press for compensation for Well, Pipelines, and Trees during the hearing.
- Development charges were considered for land acquired for residential and power station construction.
- Calculation of compensation based on oral and documentary evidence deemed appropriate.
- Sale instance (Exhibit-114) of the land bearing No.1103 considered for market rate comparison.
- Exhibit-44 (sale deed) with a three-month duration from acquisition notification to sale, also taken into account.
- Lack of positive evidence by original claimants on market rate at the date of notification.
- Valuation reports of a private Engineer, Land Reference Case, and Court’s reliance on SOR discussed.
- Valuation reports by private Engineer lacked details on construction usage.
- Comparison with Land Reference Case No.4274 of 1989 for land development and compensation awarded.
- Absence of evidence showing land under acquisition surrounded by developed commercial activities.
- Private engineer’s admission of not assessing valuation for construction items noted.
- Details of sale deed Exhibit-44, purchased in 1982, compared with the acquisition notification in 1989.
- Approximately six years difference between sale deed registration and land acquisition notification considered.
Case Title: JITENDRAKUMAR DHARMABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT
Case Number: R/FA/3664/1999
