GUJARAT MINERAL DEV.CORPN. Vs. RAM SANG BHAILALBHAI & ANR.
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Appeal (Civil), 8161-8185 of 2011, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 2015
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8161-8185 OF 2011
GUJARAT MINERAL DEV.CORPN. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
RAM SANG BHAILALBHAI & ANR. Respondent(s)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8147-8160 OF 2011
GUJARAT MINERAL DEV.CORPN. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SAROJBEN GORDHANBHAI PATEL & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8161-8185 OF 2011
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in
short 'the Act') was published in respect of the land at Village Bhuri,
taluka Jhagadia for the purpose of a Lignite Project as far back on 10th
May, 1988. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed on 20th May,
1989. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at the
rate of Rs.75/- per Are corresponding to Rs. 0.75 paisa per Sq. Mtr. as per
the Awards dated 02.03.1990 and 08.03.1990. Being dissatisfied with the
compensation computed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the
claimants had raised dispute before the Reference Court which, after
hearing the parties, increased the compensation to Rs.16.29 paisa per Sq.
Mtr. together with interest and 30 per cent solatium. This was challenged
in the High Court. In the Impugned Order the learned Division Bench has
noted that village Maljipara and village Bhuri are adjacent to each other;
and their boundaries touching each other. Noting that the compensation had
been finally settled in respect of the village Maljipara, the Division
Bench thought it appropriate to grant compensation at the same rate. In
doing so it took into account the fact that there was no evidence showing
any distinguishing feature of the lands between these two villages. We
have also perused the Map in question and we note that the two villages are
contiguous to each other, having common boundaries and are almost at equal
distance to village Madhavpara. We may clarify that so far as the
compensation payable in respect of village Maljipara is concerned, that was
granted on the basis of a Sale Deed in Madhavpara. We also take note that
there is no evidence to show that any injustice or any illogical conclusion
was arrived at in following the compensation rate applicable to village
Maljipara for the village Bhuri also.
Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant
has drawn out attention to Kanwar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India (1998) 8
SCC 136, and especially to paragraph 9 therein. This is for the purpose of
contending that merely because the compensation stood settled so far as
village Maljipara was concerned, that was not sufficient ground to apply
that same rate to village Bhuri. As has already been noted by us above,
this very question had been taken into consideration in the Impugned Order
and the High Court recorded the finding that there was no evidence to
disclose that the challenged rate of compensation was, for any discernible
factors, higher than what should have ordinarily been determined for
village Bhuri. Since the High Court has specifically entered on a
comparative analysis, this decision does not come to the aid of the
Appellant.
We find no merit in these Appeals, which are dismissed
accordingly.
The amount deposited by the Appellant be released to the
Respondents forthwith.
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8147-8160 OF 2011
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(in short 'the Act') was published in respect of the land at village
Rajpardi, taluka Jhagadia for the purpose of a Lignite Project as far back
on 24th February, 1994. Declaration under Section 6 of the Act followed
on 14th July, 1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded
compensation at the rate of Rs.45 per Sq. Mtr. for non agricultural land
and Rs.6 per Sq.Mtr. for agricultural land as per the Award dated
09.02.1996. Being dissatisfied with the compensation computed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had raised dispute before
the Reference Court which, after hearing the parties, increased the
compensation to Rs.26.70 Sq. Mtr. for agricultural land and Rs.155 per Sq.
Mtr. for Non agricultural land together with interest and 30 per cent
solatium. This was challenged in the High Court. In the Impugned Order
the learned Division Bench has noted that village Rajpardi and village
Madhavpara are adjacent to each other and are also covered under the same
Group Gram Panchayat. In doing so it also took into account the fact that
there was no evidence showing any distinguishing feature of the lands
between these two villages. We have also perused the Map in question and
we note that the two villages are contiguous to each other, having common
boundaries. We may clarify that the compensation payable was computed on
the basis of the Sale Deed concerned with the village Madhavpara. We also
take note that there is no evidence to show that any injustice or any
illogical conclusion was arrived at in following the compensation rate
applicable to village Madhavpara.
Mr. V.Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant
has drawn our attention to Kanwar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India (1998) 8
SCC 136, and especially to paragraph 9 therein. However, this decision was
rightly not cited before the High Court for the simple reason that village
Rajpardi is adjoining to village Madhavpara, and is further away from
village Bhuri as well as village Maljipara. The High Court recorded the
finding that there was no evidence to disclose that the challenge rate of
compensation was, for any reason, higher than what should have ordinarily
been determined for village Madhavpara.
We find no merit in these Appeals, which are dismissed
accordingly.
The amount deposited by the Appellant be released to the
Respondents forthwith.
.................J
(VIKRAMAJIT SEN)
.................J
(PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 26, 2015.