SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KHEDA AND ANR. ETC.versusVASUDEV CHANDRASHANKAR AND ANR. ETC.

        SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KHEDA                                A
                     AND ANR. ETC.
                                     v.
        VASUDEV CHANDRASHANKAR AND ANR. ETC.

                              APRIL 8, 1997
                                                                               B
            (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]

     Land Acquisition Act, 1894 :

       Compensation-Award of-Reference Court awarding at the same rate
as in same other survey no. in the same village-Held : In the absence of any   c
distinct material brought an record, there is no hazard ta conclude that the
lands offered no comparative value-Na interference wanwzted.

      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 25352-77
of 1997.
                                                                               D
     From the Judgment and Order dated 4.7.95 of the Gujarat High
Court in F.A. No. 1125-1150 of 1995.

      B.V. Desai, Ms. H. Wahi and Ms. Nandini Mukherjee for the Ap-
pellants.                                                                      E
     Yashank Adhyaru, Ashish Wad, Abraham and Ms. J.S. Wad for the
Respondents.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Delay condoned.                                                          F

      Leave granted.

      Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was
published on August 14, 1986 acquiring 12 Hectares, 95 are 88 sq. metres
of the land for the construction of Ahmedabad-Baroda Express Highway.          G
The lands are situated in village Marida, Tai. Nadiad, District Kheda. Land
Acquisition Officer awarded compensation in his award dated 1.4.1987 at
the rate of Rs. 250 per Are. Dissatisfied therewith, the respondents sought
for enhancement and reference was made under Section 18. The learned
Assistant District Judge, by his award and decree dated August 26, 1992,       H
                                    745
    746                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A enhanced the compensation to Rs. 2,500 per Are which was affirmed by
    the High Court in the impugned judgment dated July 4, 1995 in First
    Appeal Nos. 1125-1150/95. Thus, these appeals by special leave.

           We have heard the learned counsel on both sides. It is not necessary
    to go into all other documents. Suffice it to that in another award of the
B   Reference Court under Ex. 43, relating to the same village, the land was
    acquired by notification dated May 3, 1979. The reference Court awarded
    compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,100 pe• Are. The appellants did not carry
    in appeal against the award. Thus, the award became final. The lands in
    question also situated in the same village but on different survey numbers.
C   Some of the claimants also are the claimants in the earlier acquisition as
    well, as stated in the note appended lo the synopsis filed before this Court.
    Therefore, due to the time lag of 8 years, the reference Court awarded
    compensation at the rate of Rs. 2,500 per Are. .

         The question, therefore, is : whether the assessment of the compen-
D sation made by the reference Court is vitiated by any error of principle of
  law warranting interference. It is now settled legal position that the award
  of the reference Court relating to the same village of the similar land
  possessed of same quality of land and potential offer a comparable base
  for determination of the compensation. The reference Court also noted in
E paragraphs 18 and 19 of the similarities of the lands under acquisition and
  that they were covered by Ex. 43. No doubt, the lands under acquisition
  are situated at the outskirts of the village. In the abs~nce of any tangible
  material brought on regard, as regards the distinctive features of differen-
  tiation between the quality of the lands situated, the land, subject matter
  of Ex. 43 and the lands under acquisition Ex. 48, it is difficult to find out
F whether the reference Court has applied any wrong principle of law in
  determination of the compensation. In the light of the findings recorded
  by the reference Court in paragraphs 18 and 19, we think that, in the
  absence of any distinct material brought on record, even in cross-examina-
  tion of the witnesses, we cannot hazard to conclude that they offered no
G comparable value, in particular, when the award earlier has already at-
  tained finality. Under these circumstances, we think that there are no
  circumstances warranting interference.

           The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.                         /

    G.N.                                                      Appeals dismissed.