Gujarat High Court
The Deputy Collector vs Panchal Chotalal Somalal on 29 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/225/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 225 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 227 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 228 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR & ORS.
Versus
PANCHAL CHOTALAL SOMALAL & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
Mr. Shivam Dixit, Asst. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR N V RAVAL(11267) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
MR VIJAY N RAVAL(2025) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 29/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present 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 at the instance of the State of Gujarat being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated 21.3.2016 passed in Consolidated Reference Case Nos.96 to 101 of 2010. By the impugned common judgment and award, the Reference Court has partly allowed the reference made by the original claimants, thereby, holding them entitled to get additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.190/- per sq mtrs. The claimants are also held entitled for an additional compensation at the rate of 12% p.a. under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act and 30% solatium under Section 23(2) of the Act with Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:22:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/225/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined interest at the rate of 9% pa from the date of taking over the possession till one year and thereafter at the rate of 15% p.a. till its realization of the amount payable under Section 28(2) of the Act.
2. The undisputed facts which emerges on record in nutshell are reproduced hereunder:
2.1. The respondents are the original claimants who are the affected land owners holding various agricultural lands in the sim of village Bamroda, Taluka: Khanpur, District Panchmahals. The lands of the claimants were proposed to be acquired by the State for the public purpose for the Sujlam Suflam Spreading Canal Project. The Notification in this regard under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government Gazette on 10.04.2008 and thereafter in the daily newspaper on 23.4.2008 and 25.4.2008. The Notification under Section 4 was lastly published on 8.5.2008. Thereafter, Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published in the government gazette on 11.12.2008 and later on it was notified in the daily newspaper on 17.12.2008.
The notices under Section 9 of the Act were issued upon the interested persons. The Special Land Acquisition Officer after considering the objections raised by the respective parties had proceeded to determine the market value of the lands acquired. The award in this regard was passed under Section 11 of the Act thereby fixing the market value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.5.20ps per sq mtrs in case of Jirayat land and at the rate of Rs.6.50 ps per sq mtrs for Kayari land vide award dated 29.6.2009 passed in Land Acquisition Case Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:22:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/225/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined No.71 of 2007. The award also carried with it statutory benefits which include 30% solatium and increase of 10% on compensation amount. The claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of award moved in References before the Collector, which were referred to the Court learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Lunavada on 11.3.2010. The aforesaid Land Reference Cases were registered on 11.3.2010 as LAR Case No.96 of 2010 to 98 of 2010 and LAR Case No.100 of 2010 and LAR Case No.101 of 2010. The aforesaid land Reference Cases were consolidated by the learned Judge, whereby, LAR Case No.99 of 2010 was considered as main Reference Case. The issues were framed by the learned Judge at Exh.7, which reads as under:
"1.Whether the claimants prove the compensation awarded is inadequate ?
2. If yes, what additional compensation the claimants are entitled to ?
3.Whether the reference cases filed within limitation provided U/s. 18 of the Act ?
4.What order and award?"
2.2. The claimants have led following evidence before the learned Judge:
Exh.No. Particulars
9 Deposition on oath in form of Affidavit of Patel
Kalubhai Somabhai
8 Consolidation puris
11 to 16 Village Form no.7/12.
17 Copy of award No.71 of 2007 dated
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:22:10 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/225/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025
undefined
29.06.2009
18 Copy of the judgment delivered in LAR No.364
of 2009.
19 Closing pursis.
2.3. On the other hand, the opponents have not produced any evidence and had submitted closing pursis at Exh.20. Upon appreciation of overall evidence brought on record, the learned Judge has proceeded to answer the issues accordingly. The additional amount of compensation was fixed at the rate of Rs.190/- per sq mtrs. The learned Judge by impugned judgment and award, therefore, has partly allowed the Reference Cases further holding the claimants entitled to the statutory benefits envisaged under the Act on the additional amount of compensation.
2.4. The State being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid additional amount of compensation being determined by the Reference Court has therefore, approached in appeal.
3. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Shivam Dixit has appeared on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Vijay Raval, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondents - original claimants. Learned Assistant Government Pleader under the instructions has placed on record the tabular details to point out that in two cases, the State has moved in appeal, however the matter are still lying at at the stage of registration of appeal.
Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:22:10 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/225/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined
4. At the outset, the learned advocate for the respondent has objected to entertaining the appeal on merits. The reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivappa ETC vs. The Chief Engineer and others reported in 2023 Law Live SCC 312. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose in cases where the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants then the State cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants as such attitude smacks of patent discrimination. He, has therefore, urged this Court to not to entertain the present appeal.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Shivam Dixit, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellant-State has vehemently objected to the aforesaid submission and has addressed the Court on merits of the case. It was submitted that merely because the State has chosen not to prefer an appeal on the ground of petty claims would not preclude the State from preferring an appeal which otherwise calls for interference, more particularly, when the additional amount of compensation has been determined by the Reference Court without taking into consideration the evidence brought on record by the respondent State which otherwise goes to the roots of the matter as regards the determination of the correct market value of the lands acquired. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance upon the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act in respect of the lands acquired. According to Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:22:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/225/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined learned Assistant Government Pleader, the same has been proved before the Reference Court as being admitted as an evidence at Exh.17. While referring to the aforesaid award, learned Assistant Government Pleader has further pointed out that the valuation of the lands was undertaken by the Special Land Acquisition Officer by analyzing the sale instances of last five years from the date of issuance of Notification under Section 4 of the Act in respect of the same village. It was also pointed out that apart from the aforesaid sale instances the Special Land Acquisition Officer has also taken into consideration the award of the acquired lands for the same public purpose being passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the same project. He has, therefore, submitted that no interference was called for by the learned Reference Court to fix the additional amount of compensation without considering the aforesaid evidence. As against the aforesaid evidence pertaining to the acquired lands of the same village, the claimants have placed on record the certified copy of the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in LAR Case No.364 of 2009 at Exh.18 which pertains to the lands of village Mota Khanpur. While inviting attention of this Court to the reasons assigned, learned Assistant Government Pleader had placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hasanali Khanbhai & Sons vs. State of Gujarat reported in (1995) 5 SCC 422 to contend that it was for the claimants to establish that it was best comparable exemplar available. It was further contended that looking to the developed area of village Mota Khanpur as against the lands acquired of village Bamroda, which is an underdeveloped village, the deduction of 1/3rd was required Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:22:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/225/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined to be applied by the learned Judge as against the base price of the market value of the land determined in case of lands acquired of village Mota Khanpur. He has therefore, urged to allow these appeals and to remand the matter back to the learned Reference Court.
6. Mr. Raval, learned advocate for the respondents- original claimants has submitted that it is a settled legal position that award made by the Land Acquisition Officer cannot be considered as an evidence at the most it can be treated as an offer. In support of his submission, reliance was placed on the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Officers on Special Duty of Land Acquisition, Ahmedabad vs. Gordhanbhai Bhalabhai Patel reported in 1983(1) GLR 607. He has therefore, submitted that merely because the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was marked as an admitted document would not be treated to have been proved to be read as an evidence. The attention of this court was invited to the fact that no independent witness or the sale instances as referred to and relied upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer has been brought on record by the appellant State before the Reference Court. As against that, the original claimants have placed reliance upon the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court in case of adjoining village Mota Khanpur, which is admitted as evidence at Exh.18. The attention of this Court was invited to the reasons assigned by the Reference Court in this regard. He has therefore, submitted that no error can be found with the approach of the Reference Court in determining the additional amount of Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:22:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/225/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined compensation at the rate of Rs.176/- per sq mtrs. He has therefore, urged this Court not to entertain the present appeals and to confirm the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court.
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having impugned judgment and award, in light of the record and proceedings placed for consideration, in the opinion of this Court, in absence of any contradiction being brought on record by the respondent State Authorities while cross-examining the witness as regards the comparable instance relied upon by the claimants, the evidence produced by the original claimants at Exh.18 was proved. The close examination of the cross examination of the witness at Exh.9 indicates that no suggestion worth was put to the said witness with regard to the aforesaid evidence being produced on record at Exh.18. In such circumstances, the aforesaid instance produced by the original claimant at Exh.18 stood uncontroverted. As against the aforesaid evidence, no evidence has been led by the respondent State Authorities before the Reference Court. As rightly pointed out by the learned advocate for the respondent, the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act which is produced on record at Exh.17 cannot be read as an evidence as held by this Court in the case of Gordhanbhai Bhalabhai Patel(supra). Indisputably, the sale instance relied upon by the Special Land Acquisition Officer has not been brought on record for consideration. In absence of any evidence being brought on record the instance produced on record at Exh.18 has rightly been accepted by Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:22:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/225/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined the learned Reference Court as the best exemplar available for determination of the market value of the land in question. The original claimant has entered the witness box who has deposed before the Court with regard to the distance between the two villages, which is at a distance of 5 km. The contents of the award produced at Exh.18 further suggest that the land under the reference were acquired for the purpose of Kadana Main Canal. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 21.6.2007. Initially, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.4.50 per sq mtrs. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid action, affected land owner has approached in reference praying for additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq mtrs. The Reference Court upon appreciation of the record had noticed that the claimants were taking three crops from the lands acquired, however no evidence was led in this regard. The claimants have produced award passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR Case No.65 of 2008 in support of the evaluation of the expert. The assessment work carried out by the valuer at Exh.25 and the deposition at Exh.26 were referred to where the lands of village Velanvada acquired for Kadana Right Bank Main Canal were considered. Ultimately, the Court had considered the judgment and award passed in LAR No.65 of 2008 as a comparable award thereby determining the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.176/ - per sq mtrs. As against the aforesaid fact, Section 4 Notification in the present case has been issued on 10.04.2008. The evidence of the original claimant has remained uncontroverted. Considering the evidence of the Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:22:10 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/225/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/01/2025 undefined original claimant in light of the judgment and award placed on record at Exh.18 in case of village Mota Khanpur, in the opinion of this Court, no error can be found with the approach of the learned Judge in treating it as the best exemplar available for the purpose of determining the additional amount of compensation. By considering the base price of Rs. 176/- per sq mtrs, learned Judge rightly determined the additional amount of compensation and awarded consequential statutory benefits. As regards the reliance placed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is concerned, no evidence worth has been brought on record by the State to controvert the evidence led by the claimants. In the opinion of this Court, the cogent material has been placed for consideration, whereby, prima facie burden to prove the case on enhance amount of compensation has been satisfied and it was for the respondent State Authorities to discharge the burden otherwise.
8. For the reasons assigned, the present appeals are not entertained and are hereby dismissed. The amount which may be lying in the Fixed Deposit Receipt pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, the Reference Court is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants subject to verification within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the present order. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.
sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:22:10 IST 2025