Gujarat High Court
Spl. Land Acq. Officer vs Nileshkumar Kamalnayan Poa Of ... on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3472 of 2011
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 22 of 2012
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3472 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3476 of 2011
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 26 of 2012
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3476 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
SPL. LAND ACQ. OFFICER & ORS.
Versus
NILESHKUMAR KAMALNAYAN POA OF MULJIBHAI LAXMIDAS
================================================================
Appearance:
MS RAJVI SHAH, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the appellant-original opponent challenging common judgment and order dated 27.08.2010 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.1169 to 1185 of 1997 by the Principal Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch. The Captioned First Appeals are arising out of Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.1179 and 1183 of 1997 respectively.
2. Heard learned AGP Ms. Rajvi Shah for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the respondent.
3. Claimants have also filed cross-objections for enhancement of compensation in the respective First Appeals. As the captioned First Appeals as well as the captioned Cross- objections are arising out of the common judgment and award and the facts in all the matters are also common, therefore, by this common judgment, First Appeals as well as Cross- objections are decided together.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
4.1. The Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada Project) Unit No.7 acquired the lands of village-Bharthana, Taluka & District-
Bharuch for the purpose of Dayadra Distributory Minor B2 Minor Branch Canal. Notification under Section 4 and 6 of the Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined Act were published on 12.09.1994 and 14.12.1995 respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.667.50/- per Are for irrigated land as compensation on 26.08.1996. Claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, filed reference cases under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the compensation. After considering the evidence, learned Reference Court awarded additional compensation at Rs.98.14/- per square metres with statutory benefits. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, appellants have filed the present First Appeals.
5. Learned AGP for the appellants has contended that the award passed by learned Reference Court is on a higher side. It is further contended that learned Reference Court without appreciating the facts and without appreciating the quality and fertility of the lands and the development of the area, has awarded compensation. It is further contended that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award after taking into consideration all factors including five years sale instances and Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined awarded just and reasonable compensation. Learned Reference Court, in absence of any cogent and convincing material placed on record by the claimants, has relied upon judgment passed in the land acquisition cases of village Zanor. It is further contended that the exemplar of village Zanor is not a correct exemplar. Therefore, judgment and order passed by learned Reference Court be quashed and set aside. Except above, no other submissions are canvassed by learned AGP for the appellants.
6. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent-original claimants contended that the learned Reference Court has taken into consideration the exemplar of a decision rendered of adjoining village Zanor. It is further contended that the village Bharthana and village Zanor are adjoining villages. Claimants have also produced map of Bharuch-Taluka to substantiate the fact that both the villages are adjoining villages. It is further contended that the decision in the case of village Zanor was assailed by Manager, National Thermal Power Project, Bharuch Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court First Appeal No.120 of 2011 and allied matters, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide its oral judgment dated 16.10.2025 has modified the determination of the compensation decided by learned Reference Court. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also taken into consideration the decision dated 23.07.2012 passed in First Appeal No.1682 of 2012 which pertains to village Bharthana. It is further contended that since the question of determination of market price of village Bharthana has been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.07.2012, the First Appeals filed by the appellants herein deserves to be dismissed. Except above, no other submissions are made by learned advocate for the respondent-original claimants.
7. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties and perused the Record and Proceedings. The undisputed fact comes out on record that the Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined lands of the claimants which is situated in village-Bharthana is acquired by the acquiring body for the purpose of Dayadra Distributory Minor B2 Minor Branch Canal. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 12.09.1994. Learned Reference Court while determining just and fair market price of the land in question, has relied upon the decision rendered in the matter pertains to village Zanor at Exhibit-96. Learned Reference Court has also relied upon the map produced by the claimants of Taluka-Bharuch which indicates that village Bharthana and village Zanor are adjoining to each other. Learned Reference Court has adopted a proper method and manner in determining the compensation. Moreoever, in the reference proceedings of the cases pertaining to village Zanor, wherein the purpose of acquisition was National Thermal Power Corporation Project and Notification under Section 4 was issued on 16.10.1990. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while determining the compensation has fixed market price of the land in question at Rs.105/- per square metres. It is also Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined found that in First Appeal No.1682 of 2012 and allied matters which pertains to the same village Bharthana, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has awarded additional compensation at Rs.98/- per square metres. In the case before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, notification under Section 4 was published on 09.02.1995 and the purpose of acquisition was also the same as that of Dayadra Distributory Minor B2 Minor Branch Canal of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited. Since the determination of the market price of the land in question of village Bharthana has been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and as learned AGP could not point out any contradictory material in not relying upon the best exemplar for determining just and fair compensation, I am of the opinion that the appeals of the appellant lacks merits and the same are required to be dismissed.
8. So far as the cross-objections filed by the claimants are concerned, learned advocate for the appellants could not point out any evidence and could not substantiate any convincing Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:38 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025 undefined reason for enhancement of compensation. As observed hereinabove, the determination of market price is already been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, no interference is required in the impugned judgment and award. Resultantly, cross-objections filed by the claimants are dismissed. First Appeals stand dismissed.
9. Claimants are entitled to additional compensation at Rs.98/- per square metres with all statutory benefits.
10. The learned trial Court below shall disburse the amount of compensation in favour of the claimants through RTGS or NEFT by following the due procedure and identification.
11. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court / Tribunal below.
(D. M. DESAI,J) RINKU MALI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by RINKU MALI(HC01574) on Sat Dec 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Dec 08 20:30:38 IST 2025