Gujarat High Court
Patel Prakashbhai Amratbhai vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 3 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4111 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4228 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 20 of 2025
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4297 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4227 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4229 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4225 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4226 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4112 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4113 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
PATEL PRAKASHBHAI AMRATBHAI
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
FA No.4111, 4228, 4297 and 4227 of 2024 & 20 of 2025
Mr. Shivam Dixit, Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for the
Defendant(s) No. 1,2
FA No.4229, 4225, 4226, 4112 and 4113 of 2024
Mr. Manohar Rahevar, Assistant GOVERNMENT PLEADER/PP for
the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 03/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:00:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined
1. Heard Mr. A V Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant - original claimants and Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent State Authorities.
2. The captioned appeals arises out of the common impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, whereby, the application seeking reference at the instance of the original claimants have been partly allowed by the impugned common judgment and award dated 16.5.2008 passed in Land Reference Case Nos. 1507 of 2003 to 1541 of 2003 (Main LAR Case No.1507 of 2008). The appeals are therefore, decided and disposed of by this common judgment and award.
3. At the outset, Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant has placed on record the tabular details of the Reference Cases to point out that against the same common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the State has approached in Appeals which were registered as First Appeal Nos. 2241 of 2010 and other allied matters. The cross objections were also preferred by the original claimants in the respective Reference Cases, which were registered as Cross Objection No.131 of 2016 and other allied matters. The aforesaid matters were heard and decided by the Coordinate Bench and by common oral judgment dated 5.9.2022 passed in First Appeal No.2241 of 2010 and other allied matters has dismissed the appeals preferred by the State and has partly allowed the cross objections. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court was accordingly Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:00:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined modified to the extent by considering Rs.500/- per sq mtrs towards market value of adjacent Taluka Visnagar and after deducting 30% for the market value of village Shunshi, it was computed at rate of Rs.320/- per sq mtrs. Thereafter, further deduction of Rs.160/- per sq mtrs as awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer which was consdiered thereby determining Rs.181 per sq mtrs as additional amount of compensation. Thus, the Coordinate Bench has held the claimants of the respective cross objections entitled to additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.180/- per sq mtrs (rounded of) over and above the amount awarded by the Reference Court along with statutory benefits under Sections 23(1)(a) and 23(2) of the Act and interest under Section 28 of the Act and accordingly compensation is enhanced. Learned advocate has therefore, urged to allow the present appeals preferred by the respective claimants of Land Reference Cases which were decided by the same common impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and has been modified by the aforesaid order dated 5.9.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench.
4. Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing of the respondent State Authorities has fairly conceded that the challenge in the present appeals is against the same impugned judgment and award has stand modified by the Coordinate Bench by order dated 5.9.2022 passed in First Appeal No.2241 of 2010 and other allied matters. The learned Assistant Government Pleader under the instructions has further submitted that State has not challenged the aforesaid order in appeal before the Higher Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:00:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined Forum and aforesaid common judgment and order passed by the Coordinate Bench stand as on the date.
5. In light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award and in light of the common oral judgment and order dated 5.9.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.2241 of 2010 and other allied matters, indisputably the challenge is to the same common judgment and award dated 16.5.2022 passed by the learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mahesana in Land Reference Case Nos. 1507 of 2003 to 1541 of 2003 (Main LAR Case No.1507 of 2008 which stand modified by virtue of the order dated 5.9.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench in First Appeal No.2241 of 2010 and other allied matters. Therefore, the aforesaid common oral judgment and order dated 5.9.2022 passed by the Coordinate Bench in absence of any appeal being preferred would govern the present appeals as well for the reasons assigned by the Coordinate Bench which are reproduced herein under:
"10. It would be apposite to note that for the land acquisition of the adjoining "Taluka" Visnagar, for which Section 4 notification was published on 18.07.2002 i.e. on the very same date to that of the present Village Sunshi in LAR Case Nos.352 of 2009 to 387 of 2009 and 356 of 2011, the reference court awarded an additional compensation of Rs.480/- (market value of Rs.500 - Rs.20 granted by the Land Acquisition Officer) vide judgment and award dated 10.06.2013. The same was subject matter of challenge before this Court in First Appeal No.1373 of 2015 and allied matters. By the judgment dated 24.08.2015, this Court dismissed the appeal filed by the State Authority by observing thus:-Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:00:14 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined ".......Therefore, the reference Court has, relying upon the decision of this High Court in the case of Amaji Mohanji Thakor reported in 2010(3) GLH 447 and judgment dated 9.7.2007 in First Appeal nos.2832 of 2006 to 2843 of 2006 in the case of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. Vs. Patel Haribhai Manilal deducted 30% of the valued rate and considered the compensation at Rs.469/- per sq.mtr. and, thereafter, adding 10% of such amount for passage of time beyond one year when the payable compensation comes to Rs.523.71 ps. per sq.mtr., since claimants have claimed only Rs.500/- per sq.mtr., the reference Court has deducted Rs.20/- already awarded by the Land Acquisition Authority and thereby considered enhancement of additional compensation only @ Rs.480/- instead of Rs.503.71 ps. All such facts and details are well described in the impugned judgment, therefore, I do not see any substance and reason to admit such appeal and keeping it pending for couple of years when there is no substance in such appeals. However, appellants are relying upon the judgment dated 11.7.2011 by the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Patel Kachrabhai Ishwarlal Vs.Special Land Acquisition Officer in First Appeal nos.3545 to 3579 and 3581 to 3613 of 1996 contending that for the land of adjoining village Paldi, the additional compensation confirmed by the Division Bench in the year 2011 is only Rs.17.40 ps., and therefore, the award of additional compensation of Rs.480/- per sq.mtr. is unwarranted. However, the appellant has failed to realise that the acquisition and price considered in such unreported judgment is of the year 1985 and that too for the Paldi village, whereas in the present case, acquisition is in the year, 2002 i.e. almost after two decades and that too the land is in well developed town like Visnagar and not of a small village. Therefore, only because of such unreported judgment, it cannot be said that the impugned order is bad in law or needs to be interfered only because acquiring authority is preferring an appeal.
11. It is not disputed that the said acquisition pertains to the land situated in Visnagar "taluka" and the subject matter of the present proceedings is land belonging to "Village"
Sunshi. Hence, at this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made by the Division Bench in the judgment dated 04.05.2011 passed in First Appeal No.1377 of 2011. The same reads as under:-
"7. In both the matters, the Reference Court has lost sight of the important aspect that Unjha is a municipal area whereas Brahmanwada is a gram panchayat area. In a case Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:00:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined where the valuation is made of the land which is falling in the municipal area, it cannot be compared at para with the land situated at village area even if the boundary of municipal area and the boundary of the said village area may be touching to one another. The reason is that there would be basic difference in the infrastructural facilities and the amenities in the municipal area in comparison to the gram panchayat area. For municipal area, there will be facilities of water, light, transportation, road, school, etc., which may not be available in the gram panchayat area. Further, even if it is considered that since the area is adjacent to each other, there was more development in gram panchayat area, which is adjacent to the municipal area, it appears to us that if it is to be examined for the purpose of tracing the appropriate valuation, such valuation will be minimum 30% less in comparison to the value of the land in the municipal area. It appears that the Reference Court has totally lost sight of the said aspect and has considered the valuation of the land at par with Unjha which is a municipal area. The learned counsel for the original claimants is also not in a position to show any evidence to the contrary save and except that the village of Brahmanwada is touching to Unjha city. In our view, would not make much difference as observed earlier and the difference of valuation by 30% at least would continue even after the boundary of the village attached to the municipal area since the basic difference of various facilities and infrastructure and development between the municipal area and the gram panchayat area would continue.
8. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions in the group of First Appeal No.2794/09, as the valuation of the land is assessed by the Reference Court at Rs.468/-, it will have to be reduced by 30% and such amount would come to Rs.140.40 and if deducted from Rs.468/-, it would come to Rs.327.60 out of which, the amount at the rate Rs.18/- per square metre has already been awarded as compensation. T herefore, the net amount would come to Rs.309.60 per square metre being the additional amount of compensation."
12. The Division Bench has observed that the aspect with regard to municipal areas and grampanchayat area is of relevant criteria to fix the compensation of the acquired land. The Division bench has stated that there would be basic difference in the infrastructure facilities and the amenities in the municipal area and the grampanchayat area and after considering the same, the Division Bench has reduced the compensation by 30%.
Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:00:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined
13. In the present case, the land acquired is of village, whereas the notification under Section 4 of the very same date has been issued in the adjoining Taluka area of Visnagar, which is admittedly admittedly having more facilities like water, light, transportation, road, school etc. and hence, as per the parameters suggested by the Division Bench there has to be 30% reduction in the final additional amount of compensation, which has be awarded for the lands acquired of Visnagar Taluka.
14. The conspectus of the aforesaid discussion is that the amount, which has been awarded by way of an additional compensation to Taluka Visnagar i.e. Rs.480/-(market value of Rs.500 - Rs.20 granted by the Land Acquisition Officer) is required to be reduced by 30% for the present Village Sunshi.
15. Considering Rs.500/- per sq. mtr. and deducting 30% would come to Rs.320/- per sq.mtr. The Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.8.10/- per sq.mtr. The reference Court has awarded Rs.160/- per sq.mtr. The total amount, which is required to be deducted would be Rs.350-168.10/- per sq.mtr., which comes to Rs.181.9/- per sq.mtr. Thus, instead of 181.9 the claimants would be entitled to an additional amount Rs.180/- per sq.mtr, (rounded of) over and above the amount awarded by the Reference Court along with statutory benefits under Sections 23(1)(a) and 23(2) of the Act and interest under Section 28 of the Act and accordingly, the compensation is enhanced. The appeals filed by the State Authority are hereby dismissed. The cross objections filed by the claimants are allowed by enhancing the compensation at the rate of Rs.180/-per sq.mtr.
16. The judgment and award passed by the reference Court is modified to the aforesaid extent. The amount shall be deposited with the Reference Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment and order and it shall be disbursed to the claimants after due verification."
In light of the aforesaid observations, present appeals deserves consideration and are hereby allowed.
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:00:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4111/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/02/2025 undefined
6. The original claimants of the respective captioned appeals are held entitled to additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.180/- per sq mtrs over and above the amount awarded by the Reference Court along with statutory benefits envisaged under the Act. The Record and Proceedings so called for are sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court stand modified to the aforesaid extent. The respondent State Authorities are directed to deposit the additional amount of compensation as determined by this Court in the present appeals within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. It is further directed that on deposit of such amount the Reference Court shall proceed with the disbursement of the aforesaid award amount in favour of original claimants after due verification. With these, present appeals stand disposed of.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Wed Feb 05 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Feb 05 22:00:14 IST 2025