Gujarat High Court
Bhagwanji Vashram vs State Of Gujarat on 31 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1696 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1696 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1698 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1698 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1697 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1697 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1694 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1694 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1693 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1693 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1690 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1690 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3737 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3737 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1687 of 2020
Page 1 of 26
Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1687 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1686 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1686 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1683 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1683 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3821 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3821 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3820 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3820 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1684 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1684 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1689 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1689 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1692 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
Page 2 of 26
Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1692 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1691 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1691 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1918 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1699 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1699 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1688 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1688 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3713 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3713 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1695 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1695 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1685 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1685 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Page 3 of 26
Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHAGWANJI VASHRAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 31/01/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Kunal S. Shah, learned advocate on record for the appellant and Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned AGP appearing for the respondent - State.
2. The present appeal is filed under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, at the instance of the original claimants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 30.03.2011 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Land Reference Case No.190 of 2006 and allied matters, preferred under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. By the said common judgment and award, the Reference Court has partly allowed the reference preferred by the Page 4 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined original claimants holding the claimants entitled to compensation @ Rs.43/- per sq. meter for their non-irrigated lands of Village Sherdi, Taluka Manavadar, District Junagadh. The market value of non-irrigated land fixed @ Rs. 5.25 per sq. meter as per the award passed by the land acquisition officer which has been paid to the claimants has been deducted from the aforesaid amount of compensation determined i.e. Rs.43-Rs.5.25ps.=Rs.37.75ps. per sq. meter. The Reference Court has therefore awarded additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.38-00ps. per sq. mt. towards the non-irrigated acquired lands. Accordingly, the market value of the irrigated land is determined @ Rs.58-00ps. per sq. meter. Apart from the aforesaid additional amount of compensation, the reference Court has also held the claimants entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum on the additional amount from the date of publication of notification under section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 till the date of declaring the award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as per the provisions of Section 23(IA) of the Act. The claimants are also held entitled to get solatium @ 30% on the additional amount awarded by the Reference Court in view of the provisions of section 23(2) of the Act, 1894. The opponents are accordingly directed to pay interest on the total aggregate amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of taking of possession or from the date of publication of Page 5 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894, whichever may be earlier for the first year and thereafter @15% per annum till the date of realization of the payable total aggregate according to the provisions of Section 28 of the Act, 1894. Hence, these appeals at instance of original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of additional compensation on lower side.
4. In order to appreciate the case of the present appellant praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation, the relevant dates would be necessary for adjudication. The lands of the original claimants situated in the sim of village Sherdi, Taluka Manavadar, District Junagadh were intended to be acquired for the public purpose of "Badar -2 Irrigated"
Scheme. The State had issued a preliminary notification for acquisition of the aforesaid lands of village Sherdi by issuing notification under section 4 of the Act on 12.07.2005 which was published in the Government Gazette on 15.07.2005. Subsequently, the notification under section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published on 22.09.2005. The Special Land Acquisition Officer appointed by the State had thereafter proceeded to determine the market value of the acquired lands and notices in this regard were issued under section 9 of the Act to the interested parties. The respective objectors were heard and the award was passed by the Special Land Page 6 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the Act of 1894 on 26.12.2005. By the aforesaid award, the Special Land Acquisition Officer had directed payment of compensation to the tune of Rs.650/- per acre for irrigated land and Rs.525/- per acre for non-irrigated land.
5. The original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount of compensation had moved in reference before the Collector which was presented before the Court of 3 rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh on 10.04.2006. On the same date, the land reference cases were registered under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Land Reference Case No. 190 of 2006 was treated as the main case. The cognate matters were heard and directed to be consolidated by the Reference Court. The common evidence were led by the respective parties in the group of reference cases.
6. Considering the pleadings, the learned Judge had framed following issues at Ex-12:
1] Whether the claimant/applicant proves that compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is unjust, improper, unreasonable and inadequate ?
2] If yes, what ought to be the just, proper, reasonable Page 7 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined and adequate compensation ?
3] What order ?
7. The claimants have examined one Gordhanbhai
Madhabhai Kalariya, being one of the claimant of L.R.C. No. 195 of 2006 at Exh.-22. The documentary evidence were also placed on record which include the copy of the award passed in L.A.Q. No. 28 of 2003 at Exh.-9. The copy of the order dated 03.08.1991 passed by the Collector, Junagadh for selling out the land of Government to GETCO at Exh.-18, copy of deposition of one Avinash Hasmukhrai Nanavati, Executive Engineer, P.G.V.C.L., as recorded in L.R.C. No.1359 of 1999 was also placed on record at Exh.-19. The closing pursis was thereafter tendered at Exh.-23 by the claimants. As against the aforesaid evidence of the claimants, the respondent - State authorities has produced on record voluminous documentary evidences, the details of which are reproduced in the tabular form as under:
OPPONENT'S EVIDENCE :
Exh. 74: Affidavit of Shri Bharatkumar Kantilal Joshi, Dy.
Collector and Land Acquisition Officer (Irrigation), Junagadh.
Page 8 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Exh. 36: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 102 of Rathod Mulubhai Jivabhai.
Exh. 37: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 103 of Rathod Ramji Jethabhai.
Exh. 38: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 101/1 Paiki of Padhariya Mulubhai Parbatbhai. Exh. 39: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 101/2 paiki of Madhabhai and Radhaben Gagjibhai. Exh. 40: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 93 paiki of Vachhani Gokal Devraj.
Exh. 41: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 92 of Bhalodiya Gopalbhai Gordhanbhai. Exh. 42: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 22 of Jamkuben Jerajbhai.
Exh. 43: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 21 of Vachhani Parbat Kurji.
Exh. 44: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12. S.No. 20 of Vachhani Parbat Kurji.
Page 9 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Exh. 45: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 13 of Rathod Pravin Karshan.
Exh. 46: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12. S.No. 14 of Rathod Pravin Karshan.
Exh. 47: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 24 paiki of Kalariya Gordhan Madha.
Exh. 48: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 24/1 of Kalariya Parshotam Madhabhai. Exh. 49: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 11/1 of Dudhiben, Nanduben, Krashnaben Aba, Kantaben, Lalitaben, Devji, purchaser of land Bhagwanji Vashram.
Exh. 50: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12. S.No. 34/2 of Koradiya Hira Daya.
Exh. 51: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 34/3 of Tilva Harji Nanji.
Exh. 52: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 35/2 of Tilva Mithiben, Ramji, Hansraj, Kesarben Thakarshi.
Page 10 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Exh. 53: Certified copy of Para - 104 of L.A.Q. No. 28/03. Exh. 54: Certified copy of Award of L.A.Q. No. 28/03. Exh. 55: Certified copy of letter of Talati-cum-Mantri, Sherdi for serving notice u/S. 12(2) of Act to interested. Exh. 56: Certified copy of Statement of execution in LAQ 28/03.
Exh. 57: Certified copy of Statement of execution as per S. 12(2).
Exh. 58: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Koradiya Hira Daya.
Exh. 59: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Koradiya Vashram Daya. Exh. 60: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Babiben and Pravin Karshan Exh. 61: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Vachhani Parbat Kurji. Page 11 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Exh. 62: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Vachhani Parbat Kurji. Exh. 63: Certified copy of Form "GG" and Possession Receipt of Jamkuben Jerajbhai.
Exh. 64: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Kalariya Parshotam Madha. Exh. 65: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Kalariya Gordhan Madha. Exh. 66: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Bhalodiya Gopal Karshan. Exh. 67: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Vachhani Gokal Devraj. Exh. 68: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Vachhani Gokal Devraj. Exh. 69: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Rathod Mulubhai Jivrajbhai. Exh. 70: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Rathod Ramji Jethabhai. Page 12 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Exh. 71: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Rathod Kishorbhai Mulubhai. Exh. 72: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Padhiyar Mulu Parbat.
Exh. 73: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession Receipt of Madhabhai, Radhaben, Gagji. The respondent - State authorities have not examined any witness. The closing pursis was thereafter tendered by the respondent - State authorities.
8. Considering the overall evidence brought on record by the respective parties, the Reference Court had accepted the evidence produced by the original claimant at Exh.-18 to be the best exampler for the purpose of determining the additional amount of compensation of the acquired lands. It would be relevant to reproduce the findings and the reasons assigned by the learned judge while determining the additional amount of compensation based on the instance produced by the claimants at Ex-18.
"(12) Looking the documents vide Exh. 18, it is order for fixing the market value of land of village Sardargadh Page 13 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined which had been given to GETCO for construction of 66 KV.
Sub-Station. Government had fixed the market value of land which was vested in Gram Panchayat, Sardargadh. Looking the order and fact of that land, it is appeared that the land had been acquired by GETCO for the commercial purpose as the GETCO is doing the business of supply electricity. Hence, the government had assessed the market price at the highest rate with view to gain more price of the land which generate the public fund in the interest of public. Simultaneously, the GETCO might be paid high rate for the land for commercial purpose because GETCO can be gained higher profit from its business. When the government land acquired by the Corporation who is doing its business for electricity supply for commercial purpose then Corporation can pay higher rate of the land. When the government give its own land then whatever may be consideration amount at higher rate will come ultimately, it will go in the public fund and it will be used for the development of public at large. So, the government can assess the market value of its own land at higher rate in the interest of public for generate public fund. When the government acquired the land of private party then the land is not acquired for the commercial purpose but it is acquired for the public purpose. Hence, the rate of the market value of the land of the private party cannot be assessed at the rate of the government land. It is well settled that all land is of the government. Page 14 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined Individual private party is only an occupier. Hence, the government is real owner of the all land. Hence, when the government acquired the land of private party in the interest of public at large then the rate cannot be fixed at higher rate.
(13) In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions, of course this court considered the reliance vide Exh. 18 for fixing the market value of the acquired lands but the notification of the acquired land was published in the year
- 2005 when the market value of the government land had been fixed at higher rate in the year - 1991. As the Special Land Acquisition Officer has determined market price of the acquired land for Irrigated land Rs. 650/- per Acre and Rs. 525/- for Non Irrigated land, hence, the compensation awarded is inadequate.
(14) Now, the question is that what is the additional compensation of the acquired lands? Of-course, the applicants has given the evidence of crops and price of the crops of the acquired lands but he has not relied upon the yield method. In argument and in evidence, he relied upon documents vide Ext. 18 for fixing the market value of acquired lands. The said document is the order of the Government in which fixed the market value at the rate of Rs. 35-60 ps. per sq. mtr. of village Sardargadh and this land is far 2 kms. from the acquired lands and it is admitted by the opponent in his evidence. But in aforesaid Page 15 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined discussions and reasons, the rate of the market price of government cannot be totally considered for fixing the market price of land of private party as discussed above. Therefore, 50% less than the rate of market price of the government land then it is just, proper and adequate market price of the acquired land. Therefore, Rs. 17-80 ps. per sq. mtr. (Rs. 35 - 60/2=Rs. 17-80 ps.) is just proper and adequate market price of the acquired land. Also applicants are entitled for 10% rising price per year. Therefore, 10% rising price per year i.e. 12 months is multiplied by 167 months [Order of Government dtd. 3-8- 1991 Exh. 18, Date of Notification u/S. 4 15-7-2005 = 13 Yrs. 11 Months ] (13 Yrs. = 156 months + 11 months) and it comes to Rs. 24.77 Ps. per Sq. Mtrs. (10% rising price comes Rs. 1.78 Ps. per year ie. 12 months X 167 months = Rs. 24.77 Ps.) and this amount should be added in the market price fixed i.e. Rs. 17-80 Ps. then it comes to Rs. 42-57 Ps. per Sq. Mtrs. (Rs. 17-80 Ps. + Rs. 24-77 Ps. = 42-57 Ps.) and for the convenience this figure when converted in to round figure, then it comes to Rs. 43-00 Ps., per Sq. Mtrs. This amount is determined for Non Irrigated land.
14.1 But, in this case some lands are also irrigated lands hence, the price of irrigated lands is also required to be decided. As per the settled law, 50% is to be added in the price of Non Irrigated land. In this case, price of Non Irrigated land is decided Rs. 43/- as discussed above Page 16 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined therefore, 50% amount of this price comes to Rs. 21.50 Ps. Now, this amount is to be added in Rs. 43-00Ps. + Rs. 21- 50 Ps, = 64-50 Ps. per Sq. Mtrs. It is the price of Irrigated land.
14.2 As per the award Rs. 5.25 per Sq. Mtrs. has been awarded and paid hence, this amount is to be deducted from Rs. 43/-per Sq. Mtrs. so it comes to Rs. 37- 75 Ps. taking into round figure, Rs. 38-00 Ps. Hence, Rs.38/- will be the additional compensation of Non Irrigated Land. Same way, while calculating amount of Irrigated land, the awarded and paid amount is Rs. 6.50 per Sq. Mtrs. for irrigated land is to be deducted from Rs. 64-50 Ps., the price of Irrigated land. Hence, it comes to Rs. 58- 00 Ps. This will be the amount of additional compensation for the Irrigated land. Hence, the answer of Issue Nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly."
9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid findings and reasons, the learned Judge was pleased to partly allow the reference cases by impugned judgment and award, however, the original claimants being dissatisfied with the aforesaid additional amount of compensation being determined at the lower side, has approached in Appeal before this Court by present appeals.
10. The record reveals that the aforesaid appeals were Page 17 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined preferred with the delay condonation application as appeals were preferred almost after a period of 9 years, to be precised with delay of 2931 days. The civil application for condonation of delay was decided by the learned Single Judge and by order dated 28.11.2019 was pleased to condone the delay. The appeals were thereafter registered and were placed for admission- hearing. Along with the present appeals, the application for production of additional evidence was also preferred by the original claimants - Appellants herein which were registered as Civil Application No.1 of 2019 and allied matters. These applications have been notified along with the present group of appeals and are decided by this common judgment.
11. In the aforesaid application, the original claimants intends to rely upon mainly two instances, firstly, the copy of the judgment dated 14.11.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Manavadar, Junagadh in L.R.C. No. 191 of 2017 (main) and allied matters, L.R.C. Case No.192 of 2017 to L.R.C. Case No.194 of 2017. Secondly, copy of the judgment dated 14.11.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Manavadar, District Junagadh in L.R.C. Case No.156 of 2017 (main) with the allied matters being L.R.C. Case No.157 to 174 of 2017. The examination of the aforesaid documents indicates that Section 4 notification Page 18 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined in the first reference case was issued on 03.06.2010 in case of the acquired lands of Village Limbuda, Taluka Manavadar, District Junagadh whereas in the second case, it pertains to the acquisition of lands of Village Bhuri, Taluka Manavadar, District Junagadh. The aforesaid acquisition was for the public purpose of the construction of the said Junagadh - Manavadar road.
12. During the course of hearing, learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah appearing for the applicants, under instructions, has not pressed the aforesaid applications, as he has conceded that the aforesaid instances are post facto notification in the present case. Learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah appearing for the appellants has therefore submitted that he challenges the impugned judgment and award mainly on the ground that the Reference Court has without assigning any reasons has applied 50% deduction as against the sale price of the document produced at Exh.-18. The attention of this Court was invited to the findings and reasons recorded which has been reproduced in the present order.
13. The Court having examined the aforesaid findings and reasons has noticed that no valid reasons has been assigned by the Reference Court to apply 50% deduction to the sale Page 19 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined price of the exemplar as relied upon for the determination of market value of the land acquired. The learned advocate was therefore called upon to establish the case of claimants with regard to no deduction to be made as contended by him in the present appeals. Learned advocate had invited attention of this Court to the evidence of one of the original claimant who had been examined at Exh.-52. While referring to his cross-examination, learned advocate had pointed out that the acquired lands of village Sherdi are well developed as against the exemplar relied upon at Exh.-18. The attention of this court was further invited to the copy of the order dated 03.08.1991 of the Collector, Junagadh whereby the State had agreed to sell the land of Village Sardargadh, Taluka Manavadar, District Junagadh to GETCO. It was submitted that in fact the acquired land was a gauchar land, therefore at the best, it could be treated as non-irrigated land though the land was to be allotted for the purpose of construction of premises for GETCO. By comparing the aforesaid exemplar with the acquired lands, it was submitted that no deduction was required to be applied for the purpose of determination of additional amount of compensation. In support of his submission, learned advocate had relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwathula Samanna Vs. Special Tahsildar And Land Acquisition Officer, Visakhapatnam Municipality 1991(4) SCC 506. Learned Page 20 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined advocate had further pointed out that having treated the aforesaid exemplar as the best examplar and noticing the gap of 14 years between the date of the order in case of the land allotted for GETCO as against the date of Section 4 notification in case of acquired lands, the learned judge has applied 10% rise every year. He has therefore urged this court to pass appropriate orders of enhancing the amount of compensation.
14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manohar Rahevar appearing for the respondent State authorities has objected to the aforesaid submissions of learned advocate for the appellant by contending that the learned Judge has rightly applied 50% deduction looking to the purpose for which the lands were acquired as against the developed land being allotted by the Collector to the GETCO. This court had inquired from learned AGP as to whether any appeal has been preferred by the State to which the learned AGP, under instructions, submitted that State has not challenged the impugned judgment and award. Learned AGP has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Thakur Dwara Kalan U1-maruf Baraglan Wala (Dead) & Ors. reported in 2023 (14) Scale 620, to draw attention of this court to the legal position wherein case of gap of more than 11 years between Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined two instances, the court has considered 8% rise to be the reasonable standard to be applied.
15. At this stage, learned advocate appearing for the original claimant had also referred to the aforesaid judgment and had also placed on record the judgment of this Court in the case of General Manager Vs. Thakor Jenaji Maganji reported in 2024 GUJHC 66685, following the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and had urged to consider 8% rise with cumulative effect as against the additional amount of compensation which may be determined by this court in the present appeal.
16. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award in light of the evidence placed for consideration in the original proceedings, indisputably, the lands of the claimants have been acquired for the public purpose. The claimants are entitled to seek enhancement of the amount of compensation. The burden to prove their case for entitlement of additional amount of compensation is on the claimant. There is no dispute on the aspect that the allotment of the Government waste land by the Collector, Junagadh for GETCO produced at Exh.-18 is treated as the best exemplar for the purpose of determination Page 22 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined of additional amount of compensation, rightly pointed out by learned advocate, the reference Court has failed to assign any valid reasons to arrive at a deduction of 50% as can be noticed from the findings and reasons recorded in the impugned judgment. The only limited question which falls for consideration before this Court in the present appeal is therefore the rate of deduction being applied by the reference Court on the aforesaid amount. It is a settled legal position that the principle of deduction in the value of land, while determining the market value of acquired land, the Courts are expected to take into consideration two essential components. First, the area required to be utilized for development works and the second is the expenses towards the development works. The fixing of market value of the large property on the basis of sale transaction, for small property, generally the deduction is given taking into consideration the expenses required for development of large track as compared to smaller plots within that area in order to compare it with the smaller plots dealt with under the sale transaction. The percentage of 'deduction for development' made at the market-value of the large tracks of undeveloped agricultural land with reference to the sale price of small developed plots, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769 has held that the same varies from 20% to 25% of Page 23 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending upon the nature of development of the lay out in which the exemplar plot is situated. Upon over all appreciation of the documentary evidence placed for consideration in light of the evidence of the witnesses, it is noticed that the land of village Sardargadh was a gauchar land which was later on forming part of Gaamtal land. The land was therefore falling within the limits of Panchayat. It appears that the land was divested from the holding of the Panchayat in as much as the order of allotment has been passed by the Collector offering the land at sale price of Rs.6,19,440/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.135.60 ps. per sq. meter. The date of the order of such allotment is 03.08.1991. It also transpires from the order that the land was allotted for the purpose of construction of premises to be used by GETCO and accordingly the price was determined. The aforesaid factors indicates that the land at Sardargadh was also a gauchar waste land however the advantage can be extended as amount of smallness of size and its situation in Gaamtal and therefore subjected to deduction. In the opinion of this Court, 20% deduction the aforesaid sale value of the instance produced at Exh.-18 would be reasonable to be applied in case of acquired lands. Hence, the present appeal succeeds on the aforesaid issue.
17. This brings me to the second contention with regard to Page 24 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined the annual rise to be considered. Indisputably, the notification in case of acquired lands under Section 4 was issued on 21.06.2005 whereas the instance which is stated as best exemplar produced at Exh.-118 is an order dated 03.08.1991. It is rightly noticed by learned Judge that there is gap of 14 years between the aforesaid two instances. The learned Judge has applied 10% annual rise for determination of additional amount of compensation of the acquired lands, however in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Central Warehousing (supra), it would be appropriate to consider 8% annual rise with cumulative effect for the purpose of determination of additional amount of compensation. Thus, applying 20% deduction (Rs.7.12) for the development charges from the base value of Rs.35.60 ps. per sq. meter it comes to Rs.28.48 ps. per sq. meter.
18. In light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Warehousing Corporation (supra), considering the gap of more than 10 years i.e. 14 years in the present case, the 8% cumulative rise has to be applied on the aforesaid value to determine the additional amount of compensation of the acquired lands, which comes to Rs.83.16 per sq. mtrs. for non-irrigated lands, for irrigated lands applying 50% to the aforesaid value comes to Rs.124.74 per sq. mtrs. (83.16 + 41.58) for irrigated lands. Since the Page 25 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025 undefined reference court has determined the additional amount of compensation for non-irrigated land @ Rs.43.00 ps. per sq. meters, the same is modified to the extent of Rs. 64.50 per sq. meters. for the irrigated land. Similarly, in case of non- irrigated lands, the additional amount of compensation is modified to the extent of Rs.60.24 (124.74-64.50) per sq. meters.
19. In light of the submission made by learned advocate having not pressed the civil applications for additional documents, the captioned civil applications for production of additional documents stands disposed of as not pressed. The First Appeals are hereby allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
20. In view of the enhancement of the additional amount of compensation, the respondent - State authorities are directed to deposit such enhanced amount of compensation preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.
21. Registry is directed to sent back the Record and Proceedings forthwith to the concerned Reference Court.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J) MAYA Page 26 of 26 Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025