Gujarat High Court
The Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Ganchi Alimahmad Abharambhai @ Ganchi ... on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/510/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 510 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
GANCHI ALIMAHMAD ABHARAMBHAI @ GANCHI ALIMAHMAD
IBRAHIMBHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is fled by the appellant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act r/w Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code challenging the judgement and award dated 29.09.2015 passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Kadi in L.A.R. No.1040 of 2013.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/510/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined State has acquired the land situated at village Shankhalpur, Tal. Bechraji, Dist. Mehsana for the purpose of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited and accordingly, the land was acquired. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 24.04.2009 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 23.04.2010. 2.1 Thereafter, Special Land Acquisition Officer had passed award on 28.03.2012 in LAQ case No. 80 of 2007 awarding compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.11.90ps. per sq. mtr. for the acquired lands. 2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the claimant has filed Land Acquisition Reference Case No. 1040 of 2013 before the Reference Court whereby, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.512.36ps. per sq. mtr. with 12% interest p.a. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.
Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/510/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined
3. Heard learned AGP Ms. Roshni Patel for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati for the respondent - claimant.
4. Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the appellant-State has 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 respondent-claimant to raise the contention that the appeals were not decided on merits.
4.1 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.
5. As against that, Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/510/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimant has submitted that the present appeal is arising from the same acquisition referred in First Appeal No.152 of 2013 and allied matters being village Sahkhalpur, decided by this Court, whereby, this Court has dismissed the said group of appeals filed by the appellant - State on the ground of petty claim involved in the said appeals. He has further submitted that other group of appeals arising from the same acquisition has 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 therefore, the present appeal is required to be dismissed. 5.2 Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel for the respondent 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 Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/510/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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."
6. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex 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 Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/510/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 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 claimant 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.
7. 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 Appeal 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.
8. The amount deposited by the appellant - State shall Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/510/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined be disbursed in favour of respondent-claimant after following due procedure through R.T.G.S. / N.E.F.T. within a 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 7 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Jul 29 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 00:27:29 IST 2025