Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Joshi Durgaben Prahaladbhai on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 152 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 150 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 154 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 157 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 158 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
JOSHI DURGABEN PRAHALADBHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. All these appeals involve common questions on law and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment treating the First Appeal No. 152 of 2016 as lead matter.
Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined
2. Present appeals are fled by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act r/w Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code challenging the common judgement and award dated 01.04.2013 passed by the learned 4 th Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Mehsana in L.A.R. Nos.431 of 2011 to 440 of 2011 and 473 of 2011. Present appeals pertain to L.A.R. Nos. 473 of 2011, 439 of 2011, 432 of 2011, 435 of 2011 and 436 of 2011 respectively.
3. In view of the fact that First Appeal No. 152 of 2016 is treated as lead matter, facts mentioned in the said First Appeal are considered. It is the case of the appellant that the State has acquired the land situated at village Shankhalpura, Tal. Becharaji, Dist. Mehsana for the public purpose i.e. for the construction of Manvada Distributary Canal of Narmada Project and accordingly the land was acquired. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 22.02.2006 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 06.07.2006.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 3.1 Thereafter, Special Land Acquisition Officer had passed award on 24.04.2008 in LAQ case No. 12 of 2005 awarding compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.7/- per sq. mtr. for the acquired lands. 3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the claimants have filed Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 473 of 2011, 439 of 2011, 432 of 2011, 435 of 2011 and 436 of 2011 respectively, before the Reference Court whereby, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.393.20ps. per sq. mtr. with solatium at 30%, additional market value @ 12% and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession till one year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% p.a. till its realization. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the State has preferred present appeals.
4. Heard learned AGP Ms.Roshni Patel for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati for the respondents - claimants.
5. Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the appellant-State has Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined contended that similarly situated respondents, against whom the State has preferred an appeal, some of the appeals have been settled before the Lok Adalat and therefore, under such circumstances, it is not open for the respondents-claimants to raise the contention that the appeals were not decided on merits.
5.1 Ms. Patel, learned AGP has submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in exercising the jurisdiction, which is not vested in it by law. She has also submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in awarding the additional compensation on higher, side, over and above the compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
6. As against that, Mr.Prajapati, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents - original claimants has raised an objection with regard to considering the First Appeal on its merits. Learned Advocate has submitted that as such, the impugned judgement and award was passed in a common group of Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined LAR cases and whereas according to the learned Advocate, in some of the LARs, the appellant State either did not file any appeal or having filed appeals, have not contested the same more particularly since, as per the policy of the State Government, any amount awarded less than Rs.5,00,000/- would be treated as a petty claim, against which no appeal is required to be filed or to be heard on merits.
6.1 Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the respondents- claimants, has submitted that other group of appeals arising from the same acquisition being First Appeal Nos.149 of 2016, 151 of 2016 and 153 of 2016 have been settled in the Lok Adalat on the ground of petty claim, whereby, the State has already accepted the award passed by the Reference Court and now it is not fair on the part of the appellant State to argue the present appeal on merits and the State Government may not be permitted to adopt the policy of pick and choose. 6.2 Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel for the respondents- Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined claimants has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer & Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos.2694-2700 of 2023, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had inter alia observed that in a similar situation, where group of appeals were preferred against a common judgement and award, and whereas the State Government had withdrawn some of the appeals, therefore, the State Government could not be permitted to contest the other appeals. Relevant observations at paragraphs 9 to 11 are reproduced herein below for benefits:-
"9. In the said case also, the Reference Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250/- per acre. The High Court, vide order dated 8.3.2016 has allowed the said appeal(s) to be withdrawn and the same had been placed on record before this Court in I. A. No.59170 of 2016. Though a period of more than six years had lapsed, the said position is not contested by the respondents.
10. The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose.
11. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination."
7. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined Court and considering the submissions on behalf of learned advocates, since the appellant does not dispute the fact that the appellant either, after having preferred appeals in other LAR Cases, had withdrawn some of them as the claim as per the Circular was petty claim and thereafter, merely on account of the fact that the additional amount awarded to the present claimants exceeds the cut-off for a petty claim, the State Government would not be permitted to question the same, more particularly since the State has accepted the very same award of the learned Reference Court with regard to other claimants. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such an attitude would smack of patent discrimination and cannot be countenanced.
8. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of the facts narrated herein above, I am of the opinion that the present First Appeals may not be permitted to be contested and is hereby dismissed. It is clarified that present order shall not be treated as precedent in any other matter.
Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined
9. The amount deposited by the appellant - State shall be disbursed in favour of respondents - claimants after following due procedure through R.T.G.S. / N.E.F.T. within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. Record and proceedings if received, be sent back to the concerned Reference Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:08 IST 2025