Gujarat High Court
Acharya Purshottambhai Hiralal vs Special Land Acq Officer on 30 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4308/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4308 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
ACHARYA PURSHOTTAMBHAI HIRALAL
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQ OFFICER & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DEVENDRA A PATEL(1801) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS MAUSAMI NANAVATI FOR MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the
Appellant(s) No. 1
MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 30/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-original claimant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and award dated 29.12.2001 passed by the learned Extra Assistant Judge at Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as the "trial Court") in Land Reference Case No.536 of 1999, whereby the trial Court has partly allowed the reference case filed by the original claimant Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 21:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4308/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined and awarded additional amount of compensation of Rs.25.50 per Sq.Mtr. over and above the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
2. The facts giving rise to present appeal are that the lands of present appellant-original claimant situated at Village Nani Kadi, Taluka-Kadi, District-Mehsana has been acquired by O.N.G.C. for the purpose of Narmada Canal Project. For that Section 4 Notification was published on 16.12.1995 and Section 6 Notification was published on 4.10.1996.
2.1 Thereafter, the claimant was served with Notice of hearing as required under Section 9(3)(4) of the Act. After following appropriate procedure, the Land Acquisition Officer has passed an award dated 22.7.1998 under Section 11 of the Act in L.A.Q. Case No. 20 of 1994 and awarded Rs. 4.50 ps. Per Sq.Mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.4.00 ps. Per Sq.Mtr. for non-irrigated land.
2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the original claimant approached the Reference Court by way of preferring application under Section 18 of the Act.
2.3 The Reference Court, after hearing both the sides and after considering the documentary as well as oral Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 21:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4308/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined evidence, has awarded Rs.25.50 ps. Per Sq.Mtr. over and above the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer vide judgment and award dated 29.12.2001 passed in Land Reference Case No.536 of 1999.
2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the original claimant has preferred present appeal.
3. Heard Ms. Mausami Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Agneya Mankad, learned AGP for the respondent.
4. Ms. Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that while considering the market value, the Reference Court has referred to and relied upon the award passed with regard to village Kadi and Nanikadi at Exh. 11 and 12. She has submitted that in the said award Notification under Section 4 was published on 30.4.1992 and herein present case Notification under Section 4 was published on 16.12.1995 i.e. almost after 3 years. She has further submitted that necessary increase @ 10% as provided and as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision in case of K. Sharadarani Srinivas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer reported in 2010 (15) SCC 524 is required to be made. She has further submitted that however, the Reference Court has not considered the Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 21:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4308/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined same and passed the impugned judgment and award.
5. In support of her submission, Ms. Mausami Nanavati, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision in case of K. Sharadarani (supra), more particularly paragraph Nos. 4 and 5 which reads as under:-
"4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib - 2002 (3) SCC 688 to show that in respect of the land acquired for new township of Bagalkot, increase of ten per cent per annum has been approved by this Court and submitted that in view of that judgment, award passed by the Reference Court may be restored. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that compensation awarded for the land which was subject matter of the case cited by the learned counsel was at the rate of only Rs.8 per sq. feet and, therefore, the principle laid down therein cannot be made basis for upsetting the impugned judgment.
5.We have carefully gone through the judgment in Special Land Acquisition Officer, BTDA, Bagalkot vs. Mohd. Hanif Sahib Bawa Sahib and are of the view that the issue raised in the present appeal is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment because this Court categorically upheld the increase of ten per cent per annum with reference to the sale deed of an earlier year."
6. As against that, Ms. Mankad, learned AGP for the respondent has submitted that the Reference Court has rightly calculated the market value on the basis of the earlier sale consideration and other relevant material and also based upon the documentary evidence produced by Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 21:48:34 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4308/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined the appellant at Exhs.11 and 12 and therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. She urges before the Court that no interference may be called for in the present appeal.
7. I have gone through the relevant material and documents placed on record. I have also perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court as well as the record and proceedings.
8. It appears that the trial Court has referred to and relied upon past five years sale consideration and village map at Exhs. 70 to 73 and passed impugned judgment and award. The trial Court has also examined earlier award passed in L.A.R. No.523 of 1999 which is at Exh.13 and Exh.12 in respect of village Nani Kadi. However, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of K. Sharadarani Srinivas (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has granted increased of ten percent per annum with reference to the sale deed of an earlier year, present appeal requires consideration.
10. Accordingly present appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.12.2001 passed by the trial Court in Land Reference Case No.536 of 1999 is hereby modified to the extent that the claimant is entitled for the compensation as follows:-
Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 21:48:34 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4308/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2025 undefined Rs. 25.50 Per Sq. Mtr. granted by the trial Court + Rs. 8.00 Per Sq. Mtr. Enhanced by this Court in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Sharadarani (supra)
------------------------------
= Rs. 33.50 Per Sq. Mtr. in total.
In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitle for the compensation of Rs.33.50 per Sq. Mtr. along with consequential benefits from the date of application till the realization.
11. After calculation as per Rs.33.50 per Sq.Mtr., the State Government shall deposit the additional amount along with amount of interest and solatium within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of present order.
12. On deposit of the amount, the same shall be disbursed in favour of original claimant after verifying the bank details and after following due procedure through RTGS/NEFT. Record and proceedings, if received, be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith. No order as to cost.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Aug 05 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 05 21:48:34 IST 2025