Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Patel Vishnubhai Dahyabhai on 29 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1736/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1736 of 2015
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1742 of 2015
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1743 of 2015
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1745 of 2015
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
PATEL VISHNUBHAI DAHYABHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR.SUBHASH G BAROT(2619) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 29/07/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act and Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the common judgment and award dated 29.09.2014 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadi, District: Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.1557 of 2013 to 1573 of 2013 (Present Appeals pertain to L.A.R. Case No.1559 of 2013 Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1736/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined and 1567 of 2013) whereby the Reference Court has awarded the compensation and awarded additional amount of Rs.265.00 per square meter.
2. The facts of the present case are that the appellants have acquired the land situated at Village: Meda Adaraj, Taluka: Kadi , District: Mehsana for construction of Agol Minor-2 under Narmada Canal Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 9.6.2011 and Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 17.12.2011. The award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act dated 19.3.2013 passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in Land Acquisition Case No. 8/2010 and allied cases whereby appellant No.1 herein has awarded the compensation at Rs.17.29/- per square meter. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred Land Reference Cases before the Reference Court whereby the Reference Court awarded additional compensation at Rs.265.00 per square meter. Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1736/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellant and Mr. Barot, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. 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 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 Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1736/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
6. As against that, Mr.Barot, 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 LAR cases, 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.
7. Mr. Barot, learned counsel for the respondents 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 Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1736/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined 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. He has also submitted that the State has taken decision either not file an appeal or having file an appeal but not to contest some of the LAR cases of the very selfsame group and therefore, the State Government may not be permitted to adopt the policy of pick and choose. 7.1 Mr.Barot, 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 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:-
Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1736/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined "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."
8. 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 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 Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1736/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined regard to other claimants. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such an attitude would smack of patent discrimination and cannot be countenanced.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court that so far as First Appeal Nos. 1743 of 2015 and First Appeal No. 1745 of 2015 are concerned, the said appeals Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:02 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1736/2015 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/07/2025 undefined have already been disposed of by coordinate bench of this Court in the Lok Adalat vide order dated 8.4.2017, in view of amicable settlement arrived at between the parties, however the claimants of the said appeals have not received any amount of compensation till date. The copy of the orders dated 8.4.2017 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos. 1743 of 2015 and 1745 of 2015 are supplied by learned advocate.
12. In view of the above, it is clarified that in view of the order passed by this Court in present appeals, if the claimants of First Appeal Nos. 1743 of 2015 and First Appeal No. 1745 of 2015 have not received any amount of compensation, the amount of compensation shall be disbursed in favour of those claimants as well, after verifying their bank details through RTGS / NEFT.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Wed Jul 30 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Jul 30 22:39:02 IST 2025