Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Patel Kalpnaben Ishwarbhai on 24 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 896 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 900 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1089 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3295 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1080 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1126 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1127 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1128 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1129 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1303 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1304 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1305 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
PATEL KALPNABEN ISHWARBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 IN FIRST APPEAL
Page 1 of 37
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
NOS. 899, 1089, 1080, 1127, 1129, 1303 AND 1305 OF 2020
MR. ANKUR KIRI FOR MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR. MANOHAR RAHEVAR, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 IN FIRST
APPEAL NOS.3295 OF 2018, 896 of 2020, 900 of 2020, 1126 OF 2020,
1128 OF 2020, 1130 OF 2020 AND 1304 OF 2020
MR. ANKUR KIRI FOR MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 24/02/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. All these matters are notified in the cause list at different serial numbers. However, noticing the common questions of law being involved and arising out of group of land reference cases being Land Reference Case Nos.6 of 2012 to 10 of 2012, 12 of 2012 and 14 of 2012 to 16 of 2012 decided by the common judgment and award dated 18.07.2016 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur, the matters are heard together and decided by this common judgment.
2. In order to appreciate the facts of each of the case, the relevant dates of Notification are discussed as under:
FACTS OF R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3295 of 2018:
3. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the State under Page 2 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act of 1894") read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 18.07.2016 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur in Land Reference Case No. 12 of 2012 (henceforth, "the impugned judgment and award").
4. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, which was decided with the cognate Land Reference Case Nos.6 of 2012 to 10 of 2012, 12 of 2012 and 14 of 2012 to 16 of 2012(main Land Reference Case No.12 of 2012), the learned Judge has partly allowed the reference, thereby holding the respondent-original claimants entitled to additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.486.33/- (Rs.495.83/- - Rs.9.50/- = Rs.486.33-/ per sq. mtrs) for the acquired lands. In addition to the market value of the acquired lands, the original claimants are also held entitled to get the amount of solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value. In addition to the market value of their acquired lands, the Reference Court has also held the original claimants entitled to the amount payable under Section 23 (1A) of the amended Land Acquisition Act on the market value of their acquired lands at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 till the date of the award i.e. Page 3 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined from 19.12.2007 to 09.06.2009 for period of one year and five months and twenty one days.
4.1 The Reference Court has also held the claimants entitled to get interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894, on amount of additional compensation payable to them at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the acquired lands till expiry of the period of one year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent year till the date of depositing the amount of additional compensation awarded by the Reference Court to each of the claimants. The Reference Court has further clarified that the amount of compensation which is already paid by the Land Acquisition Officer to the claimants, is directed to be deducted from the amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court. The appellants- original opponents have been directed to pay proportionate cost to the respective claimants of land reference cases as well as to bear its own cost.
4.2 The close examination of the record reveals that the original claimants are the interested parties/ land owners of the respective acquired lands of village-Jantral, Taluka- Vijapur, District-Mehsana. The lands were proposed to be acquired for the public purpose for Page 4 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined construction of Radhupura Approach Road. The notification in this regard was issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, which was published in a Government Gazette on 19.03.2009 and the final public notice under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, was published on 11.05.2009. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published in Government Gazette on 03.11.2009 and the final public notice under Section 6 of the Act was published on 14.12.2009. The Special Land Acquisition Officer appointed in this regard, had proceeded to determine the market value of the lands acquired by issuing necessary notice under Section 9 of the Act of 1894. After considering the objections raised by the interested person, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to pass an award determining the market value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.9.50/- per sq. mtrs. with 30% solatium and 12% interest from the date of publishing notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. 4.3 The original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of determination of market value of their lands acquired on lower side, had moved in reference before the Special Land Acquisition Officer seeking compensation at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. mtrs. The reference was presented before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur on 01.10.2011, which were Page 5 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined registered as Land Reference Case Nos.6 of 2012 to 10 of 2012 and 12 of 2012 and 14 of 2012 to 16 of 2012. The aforesaid land reference cases were consolidated to be heard together pursuant to the order passed by the learned Judge, whereby the Land Reference Case No.12 of 2012 was treated as the main land reference case. The common evidences were led by the respective claimants. Essentially, the oral evidence of one of the claimants namely Patel Amrutbhai Mithabhai had come on record at Exh.18. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, the following documentary evidences were led on behalf of the claimants:
"Documentary Evidence of Applicant :-
Exh-33 Certified copy of the Judgment of L.A.R. Case No.24/2008.
Exh.19 Certificate issued by Talati, Jantral. Exh.20 Report of District Valuation Committee of Village Jantral Exh.21 Report of District Valuation Committee of Village Kharod.
Exh.22 Certified copy of Map.
4.4 On the other hand, the respondent-State Authorities has
tendered their written statement at Exh.10 disputing the averments made in the reference. The State has examined one Shri. Asari Kantilal Dhanjibhai at Exh.28. No other documentary evidence has been brought on record by the respondent-State Authorities.
Page 6 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 4.5 Considering the closing pursis filed on behalf of the claimant at
Exh.26 and on behalf of the respondent-State Authorities at Exh.29, the Reference Court had proceeded to decide the reference. The written arguments tendered by the respective parties were perused by the learned Judge. Upon overall appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the learned Judge had accepted the District Land Valuation Committee Report produced on record at Exh.20 and Exh.21 dated 21.02.2005 and 09.11.2011 respectively at the instance of the original claimants. However, the learned Judge noticing the fact that the District Land Valuation Committee Report pertains to the same village of the acquired lands, has accepted the aforesaid report i.e. Exh.20 dated 21.02.2005 of village- Jantral to be the best exemplar available on record, considering the principles laid down by this Court in the case of State Of Gujarat Through Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Others Vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore reported in 2010 (30) GLH 447, proceeded to decide the additional amount of compensation based on the District Land Valuation Committee Report. The learned Judge further noticing the fact that District Land Valuation Committee Report was in respect of non-agricultural land, after applying the principle laid down in the case of State Of Gujarat Through Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Others (supra), had deducted 30% of the base price of the non-agricultural land as Page 7 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined determined by the District Land Valuation Committee i.e. Rs.150/- per sq. mtrs and after deducing the aforesaid amount from the base price i.e. (Rs.500/- Rs.150/ -) = Rs.350/- per sq. mtrs. was considered the market value in case of agricultural land as on 21.02.2005 to be the base price.
4.6 The learned Judge, had thereafter, examined the issue of proximity of time line, and had noticed that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 in the present case was issued on 11.05.2009 i.e. after 4 years and 2 months from the date of District Land Valuation Committee Report dated 21.02.2005. Accordingly, the learned Judge has applied 10% rise in order to appreciate the adequate value of the acquired agricultural lands. The learned Judge had determined an amount of Rs.145.83/- to be proximate market value of the acquired agricultural lands 4 years and 2 months is equal to Rs.145.83/- (Rs.350/- X 10% X 4 years and 2 months i.e. Rs.350/- X 10X 50 months / 100 X 12= Rs. 145.83/-) . Thus, the total valuation of the acquired agricultural land was determined as Rs.495.83/- per sq. mtrs i.e. (Rs.350/- + 145.83/-) as the market price of the acquired lands on the date of notification. The learned Judge had further awarded the statutory benefits envisaged under the Act of 1894 on the aforesaid additional amount of compensation. Page 8 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 4.7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid determination of the additional amount of compensation in the case of the lands acquired of village by virtue of notification issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 dated 11.05.2009, the State has approached in appeal.
FACTS OF R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1126 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1127 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1128 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1129 of 2020 AND R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 of 2020:
5. Learned AGP Mr. Manohar Rahevar is directed to carry out the relevant amendments in the prayer clause forthwith.
6. The present appeals are filed at the instance of the State under Section 54 of the Act of 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the common judgment and award dated 28.04.2017 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur in Land Reference Case No.8 of 2014 to 12 of 2014 (main Land Reference Case No.8 of 2014) whereby the learned Judge was pleased to partly allow the reference cases, preferred at the instance of the respondents-original claimants under Section 18 of the Act of 1894.
6.1 By the said impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court
Page 9 of 37
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
has held the present respondents-original claimants entitled to additional amount of compensation of Rs.552.53/- per sq. mtrs. (Rs.587.53/- - Rs.35/-) for the acquired irrigated lands and Rs.564.53/- (Rs.587.53/- - Rs.23.00/-) for acquired non-irrigated lands. The Reference Court has also held the original claimants entitled to get an amount of solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value. The claimants are also held entitled to the amount payable under Section 23 (1-A) of the amended Land Acquisition Act on the market value of their acquired lands at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, till the date of the award. The original claimants are also held entitled to get interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 on the amount of additional compensation payable to them at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the acquired lands, till the expiry of period of one year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent year till the date of depositing the amount of additional compensation awarded by the Reference Court to each of the claimants. The Reference Court has also directed the Land Acquisition Officer to deduct the amount of compensation already paid to the respective claimants while determining the amount of compensation to be paid. The respondent-State Authorities have been directed to pay to the claimants the proportionate costs as well as to bear their Page 10 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined own cost.
7. From the record, it transpires that aforesaid land reference cases deal with the acquisition of the various parcels of agricultural lands of the ownership of respective claimants situated in village Jantral, Taluka-Vijapuar, District-Mehsana for the same public purpose i.e. for Dharoi Canal. The notification in this regard under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was published by the State on 07.03.2011 and a final public notice in this regard under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was published on 19.03.2011. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 28.05.2012 and the final public notice in this regard was issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 28.05.2012. The necessary proceedings were initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of determination of market value by issuing notices to the respective interested persons/land owners under Section 9 of the Act of 1894. After considering their objections and upon hearing them, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market value at the rate of Rs.35.00/- per sq. mtrs for irrigated lands and Rs.23.00/- for non- irrigated lands vide award dated 26.06.2013 passed under Section 11 of the Act of 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had also awarded solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 12% Page 11 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined from the date of publishing the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
8. The original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid determination of market value on the lower side, had approached in reference before the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, thereby seeking additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per sq. mtrs. The aforesaid land reference cases were presented before the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur on 06.01.2014, which were registered as Land Reference Case Nos.8 of 2014 to 12 of 2014 (main Land Reference Case No.8 of 2014). The aforesaid land reference cases were consolidated and were decided by the impugned common judgment and award passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur. Before the Reference Court, the original claimants were permitted to led common evidence. Essentially, two witnesses namely Patel Ashokbhai Haribhai one of the claimants and one of witnesses of the applicant namely Vinodkumar Ravishankar Joshi have deposed before the Reference Court at Exh.21 and Exh.24. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence, the original claimants have also led documentary evidence on record, which are as under:
"DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF APPLICANT Page 12 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined Exh.12 to 18 Copy of Form No.12 of Acquired Land Exh.19 Copy of map of village Jantral Exh.20 Copy of the report of District Evaluation Committee Exh.36 Certified copy of Judgment of this Court, given in LAR Nos.6 of 2012 to 10 of 2012, 12 of 2012 and 14 of 2012 to 16 of 2012
9. As against the aforesaid evidence led by the original claimants, the respondent-State Authorities has examined one Mr. K.S. Modi, Deputy Collector of District-Himmatnagar at Exh.32. No other documentary evidence has been led by the State Authorities. Considering the closing pursis tendered at Exh.25, by the original claimants and Exh.33 by the State Authorities, the learned Judge has proceeded to final adjudication of reference cases. Considering the written argument tendered at Exh.37 produced on record by the respective claimants and in light of the judgment passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.6 of 2012 and allied matters, which was produced on record at Exh.36, treated it as the best exemplar available for the purpose of determination of the additional amount of compensation. The learned Judge, upon close examination of the aforesaid exemplar, noticed that by the common judgment and award passed in the aforesaid group of land reference cases being Land Reference Case No.6 of 2012 and allied matters, the Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired Page 13 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined lands of same village i.e. of village-Jantral at the rate of 495.83/- per sq. mtrs. After considering the examination-in-chief of the witness namely Patel Ashokbhai Haribhai examined by the State Authorities and upon perusing the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer at Exh.31, in light of the aforesaid exemplar available, the Reference Court, thereafter, had arrived at a conclusion that the amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was not fair and adequate. The Reference Court, therefore, proceeded to consider essentially two issues i.e. the proximity of the time line and proximity of the situation of the lands acquired. The learned Judge noticed that in the present case, the notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 19.03.2011 i.e. approximately 1 year 10 months days, after the final notification under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 in the case of group of Land Reference Case Nos.6 of 2012 and allied matters. Thus, considering the fact that now the lands acquired of same village and the comparative dates of Section 4 notification by applying 10% rise, the Reference Court has determined the valuation of the acquired lands in the present case at the rate of Rs.587.53/- (Rs.495.85/- + Rs91.70-/). The Reference Court has further awarded the consequential benefits on such additional amount of Compensation as envisaged under Section 23(1A) and the interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894.
Page 14 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
determination of additional amount of compensation, the State Authorities have approached in appeal under Section 54 of the Act of 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. FACTS OF FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2020, 899 OF 2020, 900 OF 2020, FIRST APPEAL NO. 1089 OF 2020, FIRST APPEAL NO.1080 OF 2020 AND FIRST APPEAL NOS.1303 TO 1305 OF 2020
11. The present appeals are filed at the instance of State under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act of 1894"), read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, challenging the common judgment and award dated 20.06.2017 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur in Land Reference Case Nos.151 of 2015 to 163 of 2015 (main Land Reference Case No.151 of 2015), whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed the aforesaid land reference cases holding the present respondents- original claimants entitled to additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.555.73/- per sq. mtrs (Rs.586.73/- Rs.31/-) for the acquired lands. The learned Judge has also held the original claimants entitled to the amount of solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value. In addition thereto, the original claimants are also held entitled Page 15 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined to get amount payable under Section 23(1A) of the amended Land Acquisition Act on the market value of their acquired lands at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of the award. The Reference Court has also awarded interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 on additional amount of compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking possession of the acquired lands till the expiry of period of one year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the subsequent year till the date of depositing the amount of additional compensation awarded to them. The Reference Court has further directed the Land Acquisition Officer to deduct the amount of compensation already paid from the aforesaid amount determined by the court. The State Authorities are directed to bear the proportionate cost awarded to the claimants as well as to bear their own cost.
11.1 The close examination of the record of the aforesaid land reference cases indicates that the original claimants are the affected land owners of the acquired agricultural lands situated in village- Sardarpur, Taluka- Vijapur, District-Mehsana. Their lands were acquired for the public purpose i.e. for construction of Dharoi Canal. The Notification in this regard was issued under Section 4 of the Act of Page 16 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 1894, which was published on 25.03.2011, followed by a final public notice issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 29.06.2012. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had initiated proceedings under Section 9 of the Act of 1894 for the purpose of determination of the market value of the acquired lands. After considering the objections raised by the affected land owners/interested parties, the award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was passed on 06.12.2013, whereby the Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to determine the market value at the rate of Rs.31/- per sq. mtrs along with 30% solatium and 12% interest from the date of publishing notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894. 11.2 The affected land owners being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the determination of market value of their acquired lands on the lower side, had approached the Special Land Acquisition Officer by submitting the reference under Section 18 of Act of 1894. Before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the aforesaid reference cases were placed for consideration before the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur on 15.09.2014. The aforesaid reference cases were registered on 16.09.2014 as Land Reference Case No.151 of 2015 to 163 of 2015 (main Land Reference Case No.151 of 2015). The aforesaid land reference cases were consolidated and were decided by Page 17 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined the common judgment and award, which are under challenge in the present appeals.
11.3 By the aforesaid reference, the original claimant had prayed for additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/-per sq. mtrs. The reliance was placed on the following evidences led on behalf of the original claimants:
"ORAL EVIDENCE OF APPLICANT :-
Exh -12 Affidavit of Patel Mathurbhai Govindbhai. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF APPLICANT: -
Exh.13 to Certificate of Talati-cum-Mantri Sardarpur 24 Gram Panchayat. In respect of acquired land of the case which are having irrigation facility.
Exh.25 Map of village Sardarpur
Exh.26 Copy of order in L.A.R. No.6/12 to 10/12
Exh.27 Notes of District Land Evaluation
Committee Mahesana dated 21/02/2005
11.4 As against the aforesaid evidences led by the original
claimants, the State Authorities have examined Mr. K.S. Modi, Special Land Acquisition Officer & .Deputy Collector, Mehsana as their witness at Exh.32. No other documentary evidences were led by State Authorities, considering the closing pursis tendered by the original claimant at Exh.28 and Exh.34 by the State Authorities, the Reference Page 18 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined Court had proceeded to decide the additional amount of compensation. Upon overall appreciation of the evidence brought on record, the Reference Court has treated the copy of the order passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.6 of 2012 to 10 of 2012 as the best exemplar available on record (Exh.26) for the purpose of determination of the additional amount of compensation of acquired lands 11.5 The learned Judge, upon close examination of examination-in-chief, affidavit of the witness, in light of the judgment produced on record at Exh.26, noticed that the final notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 25.03.2011. The learned Judge, upon perusal of the map produced on record at Exh.25, noticed that the village-Jantral shares the common boundary with village-
Sardarpur. It was also noticed that for the same public purpose, the lands were acquired and hence, the learned Judge, after considering the proximity in time line, and by impugned judgment and award, has determined the additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.555.73 per sq. mtrs. (Rs.586.7/- -Rs.31/-) for the acquired lands followed by consequential benefits envisaged under the provisions of Section 23 (1A) and the interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and Page 19 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined award, the State has approached in appeal under Section 54 of the Act of 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
12. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr. Shivam Dixit and Mr. Manohar Rahevar for and on behalf of appellants-State Authorities and learned advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati with learned advocate Mr. Ankur Kiri have appeared for the respondents-original claimants.
13. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati appearing for the respondents-claimants has placed on record the aforesaid details as borne out from the record by determining the brief submissions. The same is permitted to be taken upon record.
13.1 The attention of this Court was invited by learned advocate for the respondents-claimants to the fact that in case of village- Jantral, more particularly, in group of Land Reference Case Nos.6 of 2012 to 10 of 2012 and allied matters, in all there were 9 reference cases registered before the Reference Court. It was further pointed out that out of the aforesaid 9 reference cases, the State has accepted the common impugned judgment and award in case of 7 reference cases except for Land Reference Case Nos.12 of 2012 and 14 of 2012, which Page 20 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined is under challenge in the present First Appeal being First Appeal Nos. 3295 of 2018 and 3302 of 2018. It was further pointed out that First Appeal No. 3302 of 2018 is not notified along with the present appeals. Learned advocate had, thereafter, invited my attention to the findings and the reasons assigned by the Reference Court in all aforesaid three group of set of appeals. According to learned advocate, the base price in case of First Appeal No.3295 of 2018 if is examined at the outset, the outcome of the First Appeal No. 3295 of 2018 would have bearing insofar as rest of the appeals are concerned. Before inviting my attention to the merits of First Appeal No.3295 of 2018, learned advocate had placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivappa Etc. Versus The Chief Engineer And Others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312, to contend that the State and its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose and discriminate between the similarly situated claimants by accepting the award in case of few reference cases, challenging the common judgment and award. Learned advocate had, therefore, urged before this Court not to entertain the appeal only of the aforesaid ground.
13.2 By making aforesaid submissions, learned advocate had also addressed this Court on merits of the case to satisfy as to why, Page 21 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined the appeals preferred at the instance of the State, do not deserve consideration. While inviting my attention to the findings and the reasons assigned by the Reference Court in First Appeal No.3295 of 2018, learned advocate had placed on record the copy of the District Land Valuation Committee Report dated 21.02.2005, as relied upon by the Reference Court and produced on record at the instance of the original claimants at Exh.20. While referring to the aforesaid evidence, learned advocate had further pointed out that it is apparent from the report itself that the aforesaid decision has been taken by the Committee headed by the Collector, it was a land allotted for construction of two floor houses situated in village -Jantral, Taluka- Vijapuar, District- Mehsana. By referring to the aforesaid evidence, learned advocate had submitted that in respect of same village though in case of non-agricultural land and for non agricultural purpose, the State Authorities have allotted such land at the rate of Rs.500/- per sq. mtrs. It was further pointed out that no other instances have been brought on record either at the instance of the original claimants or at the instance of State Authorities in the aforesaid reference cases. In such circumstances, noticing the fact that the instances of the same village were made available on record, the learned Judge had proceeded to determine the additional amount of compensation by taking into consideration the aforesaid sale instance Page 22 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined to be the best exemplar available. It was submitted that noticing the nature of lands as well as the proximity of the distance and other criterias including the smallness of the plot as against the acquired lands, the Reference Court has striked down a balance by determining the additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.486.33/- per sq. mtrs. of a required agricultural land. He has, therefore, submitted that no error can be attributed to the approach of learned Judge in treating the best exemplar and the deduction applied. According to him, the additional amount of compensation determined by the Reference Court, is just adequate, which calls for no interference in the present appeal.
14. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manohar Rahevar appearing for the appellants-State Authorities has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions of the learned advocate for the respondents- original claimants. The attention of this Court was invited to the schedule of the amount of compensation appended with the impugned judgment and award, to point out that it was only in case of the pity claims, the State has chosen not to move in appeals. He has, therefore, submitted that looking to the State Litigation Policy, the wisdom had prevailed on the department not to proceed in appeals against those claims. The aforesaid approach of Page 23 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined the State Authorities cannot be treated to be an arbitrary approach. He has, therefore, submitted that the decision relied upon by the learned advocate for the respondents- original claimants may not be made applicable in the facts of the case.
14.1 On the merits of the case, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manohar Rahevar had invited my attention to the findings and the reasons assigned by the Reference Court. The learned Assistant Government Pleader had further submitted that while considering the District Land Valuation Committee Report to be the best exemplar, the learned Judge has not broadly examined the relevant factors, which were otherwise required to be taken into consideration for the purpose of additional amount of compensation before treating it as the best comparable instance available on record. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3295 of 2018:
15. Noticing the aforesaid submissions of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, this Court had called upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader to point out, as to whether any other exemplar is required to be examined by this Court in the present Page 24 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined appeals as against the exemplar produced on record at Exh. 20 by the original claimants.This Court had also gone through the grounds raised in the appeal memo, to find out as to whether any other instance, the State intends to rely upon. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manohar Rahevar had failed to bring on record any other instance for the comparison of market value of the lands acquired. In such circumstances, the only exemplar, which is made available for the purpose of determination of market value, is the District Land Valuation Committee Report dated 21.02.2005, which is produced on record at Exh. 20. This brings me to the approach of the learned Judge as regards the deduction applied to determine the true market value of the lands acquired. The Reference Court has followed the decision in the case of Amaji Mohanji Thakore (supra) reported in 2010 (3) G.L.H. 447, whereby the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had treated the report of Valuation Committee, which comprises of expert body in the field of valuation including the District Collector himself, Town Planning Authority etc. to be a reliable source for the purpose of determination of market value of nearby acquired lands. In the aforesaid decision also, the comparison of sale instances of the agricultural lands was made against the non- agricultural lands. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had applied 30% deduction as against the price of non- agricultural land Page 25 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired agricultural lands. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had also taken into consideration the well settled legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Narain And Anr. vs Union of India reported in 2003 (4) SCC 481, whereby even in case of determination of compensation for a large area, the Court held that the rate fixed for small plot can also be taken into consideration when there is absence of other material evidence. The Hon'ble Division Bench has followed the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Chand vs Union Of India & Anr reported in 2009 (15) SCC 769, wherein in para 44, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted expert committee, as expert evidence can form the basis for the purpose of determination of the market value in land acquisition cases, to be treated as a relevant piece of evidence
16. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court finds no error of fact of law in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court determining the additional amount of compensation of the acquired agricultural lands at the rate of Rs. 486.33/- per sq. mtrs.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal stands dismissed.
Page 26 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1126 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1127 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1128 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1129 of 2020 AND R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 of 2020:
18. Having uphold the judgment and award dated 18.07.2016 passed in Land Reference Case Nos. 6 of 2012 and allied matters passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur in First Appeal No.3295 of 2018, in the present appeals, indisputably the reliance is placed on the aforesaid common judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manohar Rahevar appearing for the appellants-State Authorities has invited my attention to the fact that the public purpose in case of aforesaid group of appeals, was for construction of Dharoi Canal, whereas in the Land Reference Case Nos.6 to 10 of 2012 and allied matters, the lands were acquired for the purpose of construction of Radhupura Approach Road. He has, therefore, urged this Court to take into consideration the aforesaid aspect before applying the judgment as uphold by this Court in First Appeal No. 3295 of 2018, in the present group of appeals.
19. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court had called Page 27 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader to point out the expenses, if any, being incurred by the State Authorities to justify their grounds raised in the present appeals. This Court is conscious of the legal principles being laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, whereby the Courts have been directed to take into consideration the expenses which the acquiring body may incur for the public purpose, for which, the lands are acquired.
20. At this stage, appropriate would be to look into the relevant observations of this Court in the case of General Manager, O.N.G.C. Limited vs. Chamanji Kuberji & Ors. reported in (2013) 4 GLR 2769, a similar kind of assertion was made on behalf of the appellant State Authorities. However, in absence of the evidence being adduced by the State, the Court observed as under:
"4.1 Mr. Soni further contended that once the initial burden is discharged, the onus shifts on the other side. In the case before us, the onus shifted to the appellant but the appellant failed to produce any evidence showing that the assertion of the witness examined on behalf of the claimants was wrong.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, we agree with Mr. Mehta, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, that the initial burden is upon Page 28 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined the claimants to prove that the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and it is also the duty of the claimants to prove the actual market value. However, the law is now well settled that even if the initial burden is upon a particular party, in the course of the trial, once some evidence is adduced in discharge of the initial burden, the onus consequently shifts to the respondents to produce evidence to show that the assertion of the witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff was wrong. In the case before us, as already pointed out, the witness examined on behalf of the claimants has in detail described the location of the land which is at a distance of 4 to 5 kms from Pethapur, and has also asserted that the claimants used to take three crops in a year and that the modern facilities for cultivation are available to the claimants. Although some suggestions were given to the said witness that those assertions are wrong, the sole witness for the appellant- ONGC has admitted that modern facilities of cultivation are available with the claimants. He further admitted that he did not actually see the acquired lands and he was giving the oral evidence by only reading the award. Such being the admission of the sole witness examined on behalf of ONGC, we cannot rely upon his assertion regarding the nature of land and in such situation, we are left with no other alternative but to believe the evidence given by the witness examined on behalf of the claimants which has remained uncontroverted. It is well-settled law that unless the evidence adduced by the witness for the party upon whom the onus lies is found to be incorrect from his own deposition or otherwise inherently Page 29 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined impossible, a Court should not generally disbelieve such version in the absence of any contrary evidence given by the opponent. In the case before us, the version of the claimant is also supported by the certificates given by the Talati-cum-Mantri, which are exhibited and no suggestion was given that those were not genuine and were fabricated ones or that the contents thereof was not true. If any such assertion was made, the claimants were then further required to bring the author of the certificates; but in the absence of even any suggestion in this regard, there was no necessity of producing the author of the certificate, more particularly, when there is no other evidence to the contrary. The claimants having discharged the initial burden, it was for the State or the Appellant, to produce some evidence showing that the assertion of the PW- 1 was wrong or that the land in question was in any respect inferior to the one in respect of the adjoining village for which value has been assessed at Rs. 353/- per sq. mtr.
9. In the absence of any cogent evidence produced by the acquiring body or the State showing that the assertion of the claimants is false, we are left with no other alternative but to believe the evidence adduced on behalf of the referring claimants.
11. In the cases before us, both the parties have led evidence on the question of valuation of the land in question. The appellant who is a party to the judgment in respect of the land of the adjoining village (whereas the claimants are not) had some responsibility to explain that the quality of the land involved therein was better than Page 30 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined the one which is the subject-matter of the present litigation. Thus, the abstract doctrine of burden of proof does not help the appellant when the initial burden has been discharged by the claimants.
21. It would be appropriate to take into consideration the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar vs State Of Maharashtra reported in 2009 (11) SCC 141. In the aforesaid decision, the claimants have produced a valuation report and a sale transaction and the Reference Court by relying upon the aforesaid evidence, had held that the claimants have successfully proved the market value of the acquired property, and therefore, legitimately concluded that the burden of proving inadequacy of the amount which lay on the claimant was successfully discharged. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as recorded in para 27, 28, 30 and 34 are as under:
"27. It is not in dispute that power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is exercisable not only against a judgment of reversal on facts but also in cases of concurrent findings of fact and such powers are wide enough. This view was expressed by this Court way back in the year 1958 in the case of State of Madras v. A.Vaidyanatha Iyer (AIR 1958 SC 61). In Para 13 at page 64 of the aforesaid decision, this Court observed as follows:Page 31 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined
13. "in Article 136 the use of the words `Supreme Court may in its discretion grant special leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India' show that in criminal matters no distinction can be made as a matter of construction between a judgment of conviction or acquittal."
A reading of this observation of this Court, as quoted herein above and considering the expressions used in Article 136 of the Constitution, it would not be difficult to understand that this Court in its discretion may grant leave to appeal from any judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India which would be apparent also in cases of judgment of reversal and affirmance in civil proceedings.
28. It is true that the aforesaid observation was made by this Court while dealing with a criminal case but the scope of Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be different in civil or criminal proceedings. It is also true that this Court while exercising its power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India will not readily interfere with the findings of fact given by the High Court but it can interfere with such findings of fact if the High Court acts perversely or otherwise improperly.
Page 32 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined 30. In Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham &
Anr. ((1979) 2 SCC 297), this Court while agreeing with the views expressed in the aforementioned decisions of this Court stated thus:
4. The power is plenary in the sense that there are no words in Article 136 itself qualifying that power. But, the very nature of the power has led the court to set limits to itself within which to exercise such power. It is now the well-established practice of this Court to permit the invocation of the power under Article 136 only in very exceptional circumstances, as when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision shocks the conscience of the court. But within the restrictions imposed by itself, this Court has the undoubted power to interfere with the findings of fact, making no distinction between judgments of acquittal and conviction, if the High Court, in arriving at those findings, has "acted perversely or otherwise improperly."
(emphasis supplied)
34. As noted herein earlier, this Court does not normally reappreciate evidence under Article 136, but when the High Court has redetermined a fact in issue in a civil appeal, and erred in drawing interferences based on presumptions, the Supreme Court can reappreciate the evidence to prevent further delay Page 33 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined instead of remanding the matter (See : Dr.N.G. Dastane v. Mrs.S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 329)."
22. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, it is an undisputed fact that except for examination of the witness by the State Authorities, no evidence worth has been brought on record to demonstrate that the exemplar relied upon by the Reference Court, was not acceptable. The State Authorities have measurably failed to lead any evidence with regard to their claims of the lands being acquired for the different public purpose and the expenses being incurred accordingly, to be considered as a relevant factor for the purpose of determination of the additional amount of compensation. In absence of any contradictory material being placed for consideration before this Court in the present appeals or before the Reference Court, this Court is of the view that the Reference Court has rightly taken into consideration the judgment passed by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No. 6 of 2012 and allied matters, which was in respect of the same village and for the public purpose to be treated as the best exemplar available on record for the purpose of determination of additional amount of compensation.
23. In the opinion of this Court, the Reference Court in a way has taken into consideration both the factors i.e. the proximity of time line Page 34 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined as well as the proximity of position of the lands before taking into consideration as the exemplar available for the purpose of determination of the additional amount of compensation.
24. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeals fail and stand dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2020, 899 OF 2020, 900 OF 2020, FIRST APPEAL 1089 OF 2020, FIRST APPEAL NO.1080 OF 2020 AND FIRST APPEAL NOS.1303 TO 1305 OF 2020:
25. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manohar Rahevar appearing for the State Authorities has challenged the impugned judgment and award in the present set of appeals, by contending that the same pertains to acquisition of the nearby village Sardarpur, whereas the exemplar relied upon by the Reference Court pertains to acquisition of lands of village Jantral.
26. In the opinion of this Court, as rightly pointed out by learned advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati appearing for the respondents- claimants, it is evident from the map produced on record at Exh. 25 both the Page 35 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined villages Jantral and Sardarpur are situated in same Taluka-Vijapur of District-Mehsana and share the common village boundary. In fact, on close examination of the aforesaid land reference case with the details of Land Reference Case Nos. 8 of 2014 and allied matters, pertains to the same public purpose i.e. for the construction of Dharoi Canal.
27. Noticing the aforesaid factors, this Court is of the view that no error of fact or law is found in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. On the contrary, close reading of the findings and the reasons assigned by the Reference Court, two essential criterias i.e. the proximity of time line and the proximity of the situation of the lands have been taken into consideration while following the judgment of the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.6 of 2012 and allied matters, which has also been followed in the case of Land Reference Case No. 8 of 2014 and allied matters, and has been confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 3295 of 2018 and First Appeal No. 1126 of 2020 and allied matters .
28. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid appeals, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and award under challenge in the present appeals as well.Page 36 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025 undefined
29. For the foregoing reasons, all these appeals fail and stand dismissed. Notice stands discharged.
30. This brings me to the issuance of directions with regard to the release and disbursement of the deposited award amount, in view of the fact that the First Appeals stand disposed of, 50% of remaining amount invested in fixed deposit with nationalized bank, in view of the interim directions of this Court, pending the appeals, the Reference Court is directed to release and disburse the aforesaid amounts lying in the FDR's in favor of the respective claimants, subject to due verification and their identification. Let the aforesaid exercise be undertaken by the Reference Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy this order.
31. Record and proceedings received in respective appeals, are directed to be sent back forthwith to the concerned Reference Court.
32. With these observations, the present First Appeals stand dismissed.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) SUYASH SRIVASTAVA Page 37 of 37 Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025