Gujarat High Court
Divisional Railway Managershri vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2300/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2300 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGERSHRI
Versus
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
BHAVESH DESAI AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR NILESH A PANDYA(549) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
SERVED BY AFFIX. (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant - acquiring body which is the respondent No.3, challenging the judgment and award passed by the learned 14th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in Land Reference No.196 of 2013 dated 09.03.2020, whereby the compensation of acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs.14,000/- per sq. mtr. along with other consequential benefits.
Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:05:52 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2300/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined
2. It is the case of the present appellant that the land bearing Survey No.3039 admeasuring about 318 sq. mtrs. and Survey No.3053 admeasuring about 38 sq. mtrs. as well as Survey No.3054 admeasuring about 2 sq. mtrs. was acquired for the extension of the Railway Track. The Section 4 Notification was published in the Government Gazette on 30.04.2005 and the same was followed by Notification under Section 6, which was published on 16.06.2005. Ultimately, the award came to be passed under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act on 23.02.2006 determining the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs.2,370/- per sq. mtr. Aggrieved by the aforesaid compensation, the application was filed by the respondent under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act seeking enhancement of the compensation, which was allowed by the learned Court as per the award referred to hereinabove and the same is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Learned advocate Ms. Archana Amin for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Pandya for the respondent No.4.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Amin submits that the learned Court has committed an error in determining the market value at the Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:05:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2300/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined rate of Rs.14,000/- per sq. mtr. on the sole basis of Exh.26, which is a consent award, wherein after considering the urgency, the acquiring body had agreed to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- per sq. mtr. for the extension of the Railway Platform in the year 2008. Learned advocate Ms. Amin submits that the consent award cannot be the basis for determining the market value and therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appeal is required to be allowed.
5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Pandya submits that in an other acquisition proceeding which had taken place in the year 2008, the acquiring body had agreed to pay the compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/- and in the case on hand, the acquisition proceedings initiated in the year 2005 and by adopting the deduction of 10% per year, no error has been committed by the learned Court in determining the market value at the rate of Rs.14,000/- and therefore, no error has been committed and the impugned judgment deserves to be upheld.
6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, it is an undisputed fact that in the present proceedings, Section 4 Notification was published Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:05:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2300/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined on 30.04.2005, Section 6 Notification was issued on 16.06.2005 and Section 11 award came to be passed on 23.02.2006 determining the market value at the rate of Rs.2,370/- per sq. mtr. On referring to the reasons assigned by the learned Reference Court while determining the market value, the sole reliance was placed on the Exh.26, which is the consent award passed by the learned Reference Court for the acquisition proceedings which had taken place for the extension of the Railway Platform in the year 2008.
6.1. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer and others V/s. N. Savitha, reported in 2022 (7) SCC 256, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under.
"4. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that while enhancing the amount of compensation to Rs 40 lakhs per acre, the High Court has heavily relied upon Ext. P-17 -- by which in respect of the lands acquired in the year 2011 the compensation was awarded @ Rs 60 lakhs per acre. However, it is required to be noted that the award Ext. P-17 was a consent award and was in respect of the property acquired in the year 2011 and which was acquired for a different purpose, namely, for formation of double line railway Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:05:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2300/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined broad gauge between Bengaluru and Mysore City. But in the present case, Section 4 notification has been issued in the year 2008 i.e. three years before the land acquired in the case of Ext. P-17. Therefore, the award -- Ext. P-17, which has been relied upon by the High Court is for the acquisition subsequent to the land acquired in the present case i.e. after a period of three years and therefore the High Court ought not to have relied upon the same while determining the market price of the land acquired in 2008 considering the market price determined for the lands acquired in the year 2011 and on the basis of some "guesswork".
5. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that Ext. P-17 is a consent award. Therefore, the consent award ought not to have been relied upon and/or considered for the purpose of determining the compensation in case of another acquisition. In case of a consent award, one is required to consider the circumstances under which the consent award was passed and the parties agreed to accept the compensation at a particular rate. In a given case, due to urgent requirement, the acquiring body and/or the beneficiary of the acquisition may agree to give a particular compensation. Therefore, a consent award cannot be the basis to award and/or determine the compensation in other acquisition, more particularly, when there are other evidences on record. Therefore, the High Court has erred in determining the compensation @ Rs 40 lakhs per acre relying upon the award -- Ext. P-17 in respect of the land which was for the lands acquired in Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:05:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2300/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined the year 2011.
6. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that in the present case, the High Court has determined the compensation relying upon Ext. P-17 mechanically. The High Court has not at all considered whether the lands acquired in the present case is similarly situated to the lands acquired in the case of Ext. P-17. As per the settled position of law, there may be different market prices/compensation with respect to different lands, may be in the same village and/or nearby location. The land, which is on a prime location and which is on the highway and/or at a proximity to a highway may have a different market price than the land which is situated in a different location/interior of the village and which might not have a good potential for development. Therefore, also, the High Court has committed a grave error in solely relying upon Ext. P-17 to determine the market value of the lands in the instant case.
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court determining the compensation @ Rs 40 lakhs per acre relying upon Ext. P-17 is unsustainable. However, at the same time, considering the fact that there were other documentary evidences on record, which ought to have been considered by the High Court, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter to the High Court to decide the first appeals afresh in accordance with law and on merits and to determine the market price/compensation considering the other evidences on Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:05:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2300/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined record, if any.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals succeed. The impugned judgment and order [N. Savitha v. LAO, 2021 SCC OnLine Kar 15210] passed by the High Court in Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 7954 of 2014 (LAC) and Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 6429 of 2015 (LAC) determining the compensation @ Rs 40 lakhs per acre relying upon Ext. P-17 are hereby quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to the High Court to decide the first appeals afresh in accordance with law and on their own merits and thereafter to determine the market price/compensation considering the other material/evidences on record (other than Ext. P-17, which as observed hereinabove, cannot be said to be comparable). The aforesaid exercise be completed by the High Court within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the present order."
6.2 Considering the above ratio and on referring to the records, it emerges that except consent award, the claimant has also not placed on record any other documents in support of his claim. In that background, the matter requires to be remanded back to the learned Reference Court for determining the fresh market value of the acquired land on the basis of evidence which may be placed by both the parties.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:05:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2300/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined judgment and award dated 09.03.2020 is hereby quashed and set aside.
8. The learned Reference Court shall decide the reference within a period of six months from the receipt of this order after considering the evidence which may be placed by both the parties independently without being influenced by any observations made herein.
9. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. First appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) Vikramsinh Amarsinh Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by Vikramsinh Amarsinh(HCW0055) on Thu Dec 04 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Dec 04 21:05:52 IST 2025