GUJARAT MINERAL DEV. CORPN.versusRAM SANG BHAILALBHAI &ANR.

                        [2015] 2 S.C.R. 687



A               GUJARAT MINERAL DEV. CORPN.

                                  v.
                 RAM SANG BHAILALBHAI &ANR.
B              (Civil Appeal Nos. 8161-8185 of2011)

                        FEBRUARY 26, 2015

                   [VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND
                PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.]
c
    Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Acquisition of land sit~ated in
    Village Bhuri and village Rajpardi for Lignite Project - High
    Courl granted compensation on the basis of sale deed in
    respect of village Madhavpara - Held: There was no
0
    evidence to show that any injustice or any illogical conclusion
    was arrived at by High Courl in following the compensation
    rate applicable to village Madhavpara - Interference with the
    order of High Courl not called for.
E
       Kanwar Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India 1998 (8) SCC
       136: 1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 505 - held inapplicable

                        Case law reference

F   1998 (2) Suppl. SCR 505 held inapplicable Paras 2, 6

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8161-
    8185 of2011

G   From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2010 of the High
    Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in First Appeal Nos. 1831-
    1855 of 2010

                                WITH
H                               687
   GUJARAT MINERAL DEV. CORN. v. RAM SANG                    688
                BHAILALBHAI

Civil Appeal Nos. 8147-8160 of 2011                            A

V. Giri, Sanjay Kapur, Daisy Hannah, Shubhra Kapur for the
Appellant.

Nikhil Goel, Naveen Goel, Marsook Bafaki, Shobha, Akanksha     B
Kaushik, Raghav Pandey, M. M. Saiyed, Hemantika Wahi,
Jesal, Preeti Bhardwaj, Puja Singh, for the Respondents.

       The following order of the Court was delivered

                         ORDER                                 c
CIVILAPPEAL NO(S). 8161-8185 OF 2011

        1. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (in short 'the Act') was published in respect of the D
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 E
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 F
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; G
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 H
689         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     (2015] 2 S.C.R.


 A 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 fa; as the compensation payable in respect of
 B 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
 C applicable to village Maljipara for the village Bhuri also.

      2. Mr. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
      Appellant has drawn out attention to Kanwar Singh & Ors. vs.
      Union of/ndia (1998) 8 SCC 136, and especially to paragraph
      9 therein. This is for the purpose of contending that merely
 0
      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
 E    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
 F    analysis, this decision does not come to the aid of the Appellant.

      3. We find no merit in these Appeals, which are dismissed
      accordingly.

 G 4. The am·ount deposited by the Appellant be released to the
   Respondents forthwith.

      CIVILAPPEAL NO(S). 8147-8160 OF 2011

      5. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act,
 H
              •
    GUJARAT MINERAL DEV. CORN. v. RAM SANG                       690
                 BHAILALBHAI

1894 (in short 'the Act') was published in respect of the land at    A
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 rion agricultural land and Rs.6 per Sq.Mtr.   B
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,         C
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           D
village Madhavpara_are adjacent to each other and are also
covered under the same Group Gram Panchayat. In doing so
it also took into accou.nt 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           E
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     F
illogical conclusion was arrived at in following the
compensation rate applicable to village Madhavpara.

6. Mr. V.Giri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Appellant has drawn our attention to Kanwar Singh & Ors. vs.         G
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            H
691          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015) 2 S.C.R.


· A   village Bhuri as well as village Maljipara. The High Court
      recorded the finding that there was no evidence to disclose
      that the challenQE) rate of compensation was, for any reason,
      higher than what should have ordinarily been determined for
      village Madhavpara.
  B
      7. We find no merit in these Appeals, which are dismissed
      accordingly.

      8. The amount deposited by the Appellant be released to the
  c   Respondents forthwith ..

      Devika Gujral                                Appeals dismissed.




  D




  E




  F




  G




  H