Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Ravdan Fatesang on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1639 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1640 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1642 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1643 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
Versus
RAVDAN FATESANG
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2,3
MR PARV S GUPTA(11850) for the Appellant(s) No. 3
MR KM SHETH(838) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 10/07/2025
COMMON 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. 1639 of 2013 as lead matter.
2. Present appeals are fled by the appellants under Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:12:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act r/w Section 96 of the Indian Penal Code challenging the common judgement and award dated 12.12.2012 passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Bharuch in L.A.R. Nos.118 of 2010 to 124 of 2010. Present appeals pertain to L.A.R. Nos. 120 of 2010, 121 of 2010, 123 of 2010 and 124 of 2010.
3. In view of the fact that First Appeal No. 1639 of 2013 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 Sardarpura, Tal. Jambusar, Dist. Bharuch for the public purpose i.e. for the construction of Sardarpura branch minor 2 canal under Narmada Project and accordingly the land was acquired. The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 08.12.2005 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 01.02.2007.
3.1 Thereafter, Special Land Acquisition Officer had passed award on 23.10.2008 in LAQ case No. 9 of 2005 Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:12:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined awarding compensation for the acquired lands at the rate of Rs.226.68ps. per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated lands. 3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the claimants have filed Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 118 of 2010 to 124 of 2010 before the Reference Court whereby the Reference Court has awarded Rs.226.68ps. per sq. mtr. with 12% interest p.a. 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.K. M. Sheth for the respondent - claimant.
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.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:12:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined 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. Sheth, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - original claimant has submitted that the First Appeals preferred by the State relating to the same village Sardarpura, where petty claim was involved, are already settled in Lok Adalat on 14.03.2015, 12.12.2016 and 12.11.2016 and the appellant State has accepted the award passed by the Reference Court and therefore, now they cannot argue the matter on merits.
6.1 Mr. Sheth, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that so far as present appeals are concerned additional amount is awarded @ Rs.226.68ps. per sq. mtr. Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:12:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined in addition to the amount which was awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and according to learned counsel for the respondent since the additional amount awarded was exceeding of Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore, present appeals have been filed. He would submit that the State has taken decision either not to file an appeal or having filed an appeal but not to contest the same in cases of the very selfsame group the State Government may not be permitted to adopt the policy of pick and choose.
6.2 Mr. Sheth, 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., reported in [2023] LiveLaw SC 312, 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 Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:12:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined 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 Court and considering the submissions on behalf of learned advocates, since the appellant has accepted he award passed by the Reference Court and settled the matters in Lok Adalat, 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, Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:12:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined 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 are hereby dismissed. It is clarified that present order shall not be treated as precedent in any other matter.
9. The amount deposited by the appellant - State shall be disbursed in favour of respective respondents - original claimants 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.
10. 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 Fri Jul 18 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 18 23:12:47 IST 2025