Gujarat High Court
Deputy Collector Land Acquisition And ... vs Lh Of Lt Thakor Aedrajji Galji on 25 July, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3893/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 17/03/2025
Pronounced On : 25/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3893 of 2021
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 300 of 2024
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3893 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 856 of 2022
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 5 of 2025
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 856 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
========================================================== DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus LH OF LT THAKOR AEDRAJJI GALJI & ORS.
========================================================== Appearance:
MS FORAM TRIVEDI AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 MR JAY R SHAH(8428) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4 MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:50:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3893/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined CAV COMMON JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA) [1] These First Appeals filed by the appellants - State authorities and the Cross Objections filed by the respondents - original Claimants are directed against the judgment and award dated 19th April 2019 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.35 of 2017 and 36 of 2017, whereby the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deodar has partly allowed the Reference and awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.333.50 per sq. mtrs. along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the additional compensation from the date of taking over the possession for the first year and thereafter, 15% per annum till actual realization of the payable aggregate amount.
[2] The brief facts can be stated as under:
[2.1] That the land of the original claimants situated at
village : Lakhani, Taluka : Lakhani, District : Banaskantha, came to be acquired for the public purpose of Spreading Canal of Sujalam Safalam. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:50:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3893/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short) was issued on 1st July 2004 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 5th January 2005 and the same culminated into the award under Section 11(1) of the Act, which was made and declared by the Land Acquisition Officer on 21st February 2005. The Land Acquisition Officer by the said award determined the market value of the land acquired at Rs.8.50 per sq. mtrs.
[2.2] Being dissatisfied with the said award, the respondent along with other land owners preferred an application as provided under Section 18 of the Act and the same was referred to the Reference Court at Deodar, which came to be numbered as Land Acquisition Reference Nos.35 of 2017 and 36 of 2017. [2.3] In the said reference, both the parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence to support their claim. The Reference Court, after appreciation of the evidence on record, partly allowed the reference application and determined the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.333.50 per sq. mtrs. and also awarded all statutory benefits as provided under Sections Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:50:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3893/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined 23(1)(a) and 23(2) of the Act.
[3] Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants - State authorities have preferred these First Appeals and for enhancement of the claim, the original Claimants have filed cross objections. [4] We have heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the appellants - State authorities and Mr. Jinesh Kapadia for the respondents - Original Claimants. [5] At the outset, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties have submitted that in acquisition proceedings with respect to very same village, the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 18th December 2023 passed in R/First Appeal No.669 of 2019 and allied appeals with Cross Objections, has already decided the issue of compensation. Relevant observations made by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the said R/First Appeal No.669 of 2019 are quoted hereinbeblow:
"14. We have considered the ratio laid down and the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions. It is found out that the Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:50:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3893/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined principles governing determination of market value of lands acquired are well- settled and at the time of determination of the compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued certain directions as regard the the methods of valuation to be considered i.e. (1) opinion of experts, (2) the prices paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Therefore valuation made by the Valuation Committee can be a valid basis for the Reference Court in deciding the valuation of the land for the purpose of awarding compensation, subject to any change in the nature of the land, character etc. If the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court is examined in light of the aforesaid observations and discussions, it appears to us that there is no error committed by the Reference Court in relying upon the price fixed for allotment of the land for the public purpose of Spreading Canal of Sujalam Safalam, but the Reference Court has committed error in not considering the aspect that the valuation as was made of the land in question on 20.05.2004 and the said valuation is to be considered, keeping in view the principles, as observed herein above and the Reference Court has also totally lost sight of in not considering the deduction to be made in the nature of the land allotted for non-agricultural purpose and the acquisition of agricultural land in the present Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:50:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3893/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined case.
15. From the facts of the case, as stated above, it is found out that it is the case of the original claimants that the Valuation Committee has fixed the valuation of the Government land on 20.05.2004, whereas the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 30.06.2004 i.e. after the fixation of the valuation of the land by the Valuation Committee and, hence, they are entitled for additional compensation, for which, reliance is put upon the decision of this Court in case of Patel Haribhai Manilal (supra) as well as in case of Amaji Mohanji Thakore (supra) and though the aforesaid facts have been pointed out before the Reference Court, it has not been considered and 40% deduction was made instead of 20@, which the original claimants are entitled for. We have gone through the record and proceeding and found out that the Reference Court has considered the report dated 20.05.2004 of the Valuation Committee. It is found out that the Reference Court has correctly evaluated the the report of the Valuation Committee but at the time of considering the amount, 40% amount is deducted from the said amount mentioned in the report solely on the count that in identical matter in case of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. delivered in First Appeal Nos.2832 to 2843 of 2006, the Division Bench of this Court has deducted 40% amount from the price fixed by the competent authority. It is found out from the record that in the said Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:50:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3893/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined matter, the acquired land was situated in outskirt of the city area, whereas the present land, which is acquired by the acquiring body, is situated within the center of the city and as per the evidence led by the original claimants, surrounding and vicinity area of the acquired land is well developed area and in future, the Government need not have to spend any amount for the development of the said area, therefore, basic price value of the said land is on higher side, therefore, the deduction is required to be made 20% instead of 40%. We have gone through the record and proceedings and found out that the land, which was acquired by the acquiring body, is small plot and situated within the center of the city, therefore, we are of the opinion that the original claimants are entitled for 20% deduction instead of 40% deduction."
[6] The aforesaid decision was also followed in the subsequent decision of the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in R/First Appeal No.4646 of 2018 and allied appeals with Cross Objections decided on 18th June 2024.
[7] Considering the aforesaid decisions which are pertaining to the same acquisition and of the very same village, the aforesaid decision dated 18th December 2023 rendered by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in R/First Appeal No.669 Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:50:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3893/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined of 2019 and allied appeals is squarely applicable to the present case and thereby, this Court is unable to take any different view as has been taken by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court in R/First Appeal No.669 of 2019 and allied appeals. So far as deduction of 40% is concerned, the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court has observed that deduction of 40% is incorrect and instead of that, 20% requires to be deducted. [8] Accordingly, R/First Appeals filed by the appellants - State authorities are hereby dismissed and Cross Objections by the respondents - original Claimants are hereby allowed. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award dated 19th April 2019 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Deodar in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.35 of 2017 and 36 of 2017 is hereby modified to the extent that instead of compensation at Rs.333.50 per sq. mtr., the original claimants are entitled to get compensation at Rs.493.50 per sq. mtr. Thus, claimants shall be entitled to additional compensation at Rs.160/- per sq. mtr. The authorities are hereby directed to pay all the statutory benefits and the same shall be deposited with the Nazir of the concerned Court within a Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:50:33 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3893/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025 undefined period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and on deposit of such amount, the same is directed to be disbursed and paid to the respective claimants, on due verification of their identity, by account payee cheque.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) CHANDRESH Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by CHANDRESH N. SIDDHAPURA(HC01109) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 21:50:33 IST 2025