Gujarat High Court
General Manager vs Patel Hiraben Wd/O. Patel Vihabhai ... on 24 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2515/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2515 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2516 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2517 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2518 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2519 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2520 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2521 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 432 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 433 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 434 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 435 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 436 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 437 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 438 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 439 of 2006
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
PATEL HIRABEN WD/O. PATEL VIHABHAI CHHAGANBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:08:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2515/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
Appearance:
MR AKSHAT KHARE(5912) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 24/06/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. All these appeals involve common questions on law and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and award dated 16.09.2005 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mehsana, (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.2102 of 2003, 2103 of 2003, 2634 of 2003 to 2638 of 2003, 60 of 2004 and 2091 of 2003 to 2097 of 2003, whereby the References were partly allowed and the present appellant - O.N.G.C. was held liable to pay additional amount of compensation to the original claimants along with interest and costs.
3. The facts in brief are that the competent authority Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:08:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2515/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined under the Land Acquisition Act made a proposal for permanent acquisition of the lands belonging to the respondents-original claimants. The notification under Section 4 has been published by the competent authority under the Act on 13.12.1994 and 30.11.1993 respectively. After following due procedure, the lands came to be acquired. Award came to be passed by the competent authority fixing the amount of compensation. 3.1. However, being dissatisfied with the award, the original claimant raised dispute, by way of references. The Reference Court partly allowed the same by way of the impugned judgment and awards awarding Rs.154/- and Rs.140/- per sq. mtr. respectively. Hence, these appeals.
4. Heard Mr. Khare, learned advocate and Mr. Meena, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the claimants and Ms. Roshni Patel for respondent No.2.
5. Mr.Akshat Khare, learned Counsel and Mr. Meena, Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:08:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2515/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined learned Counsel for the appellant-ONGC, have submitted that the Reference Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the original claimants would be entitled to additional compensation at the rate of Rs.154/- per sq. mtr. and Rs.140/- per sq. mtr. over and above Rs.8.00 per sq. mtr. and Rs.5.00 sq. mtr. awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned advocates further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have held that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly awarded the compensation.
5.1 Learned advocates for the appellant have also submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is not based on any cogent and reliable evidence. It is also submitted that reliance placed by reference court on the judgment of village Becharaji and Henduva-Hanumant is not relevant since distance between two villages is over 10 kms and 15 kms. and therefore, the impugned judgment and awards passed by the reference Court deserve interference by this Court. Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:08:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2515/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined 5.2 Mr. Khare, learned Advocate and Mr. Meena, learned Advocate for the appellant have relied upon the map which shows the distance between Deloli and Heduva Hanumant and distance between Deloli and Gamanpura and the order passed by this Court in respect of village Gamanpura.
5.3 Learned advocates for the appellant urge before the Court that present appeals may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court may be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the Reference Court after perusing the evidence on record passed the award and therefore, the award of the Reference Court is just and proper and no interference is called for. Mr. Prajapati, learned Advocate, has also submitted that the Reference Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award. Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:08:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2515/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined 6.1 Mr. Prajapati, learned Advocate, has submitted that considering the facts of the case and after going through all the relevant documents and material produced before the Reference Court, the Reference Court has passed the impugned judgment and award which is just and proper and this Court may not interfere in present appeals and impugned judgment and award passed by the reference court may be confirmed.
7. I have gone through the record of the appeals and relevant documents. I have also examined the record and proceedings.
8. From the plain reading of the judgment of this Court dated 29.08.2011 passed in First Appeal Nos. 2794 of 2008 to 2797 of 2008 for village Gamanpura, it is clear that the present First Appeals relate to the village Deloli, which is adjacent to village Gamanpura and this Court has already decided the market value of the said village and therefore, it will be appropriate, to dispose of all these appeals on the same terms. In the said adjoining Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:08:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2515/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined village Gamanpura, this Court has already considered the market value @ Rs.36 per sq. mtr. and therefore, in present appeals, same market value is required to be awarded.
9. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the decision of Division Bench this Court in case of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer vs. Rajput Devjibhai Jethabhai reported in 2025 (0) GUJHC 26149, wherein this Court held as under:-
"7XXX
14. We have considered the ratio laid down and the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions. It is found out that the 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 Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:08:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2515/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined 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 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 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 Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:08:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2515/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined 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."
10. In view of the above judgment of this Court and in view of the fact that the reliance placed by the reference Court of villages Deloli and Heduva Hanumant is not relevant, since distance between two villages is over 10 kms and 15 kms., the impugned judgment and awards passed by the reference deserve interference by this Court.
11. For the foregoing reasons and considering the difference between two notifications issued under Section 4 of the Act, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the reference court in the above First Appeals is required to be reduced upto Rs.36/- per sq. mtr. in all the appeals.
Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:08:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2515/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/06/2025 undefined
12. For the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is hereby reduced from Rs.154/- to Rs. 36/- and Rs. 140/- to Rs. 36/- per sq. mtr. in all present appeals, in view of the difference of Section 4 Notification between two villages i.e. for village Deloli Section 4 notification was issued on 13.12.1994 and 30.11.1993, whereas for village Gamanpura Section 4 Notification was issued on 25.04.1997. Therefore, the respondent-Original Claimants are entitled to total amount of Rs.36/- per sq. mtr. Award be drawn accordingly in each appeal.
13. The appeals are partly allowed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Tue Jul 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Jul 11 22:08:51 IST 2025