Gujarat High Court
Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation ... vs Lavar Rajabhai Nagjibhai on 5 May, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4651 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 354 of 2023
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4651 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4652 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 321 of 2023
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4652 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4667 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 355 of 2023
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4667 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
-- No
================================================================
LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
LAVAR RAJABHAI NAGJIBHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MS FORAM TRIVEDI, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR MAHESH P PATEL(3381) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 05/05/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. Captioned appeals, are directed against the judgment dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa in Land Acquisition Reference case no.15 of 2005 to Land Acquisition Reference case no.18 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025 undefined "the impugned judgment") whereby, the learned Judge, has determined the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.350/- per sq. mtr., over and above already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Further directions have been issued to make the payment of the statutory interest on the additional compensation. Being aggrieved, the Land Acquisition Officer and the State Government and the acquiring body have preferred the captioned appeals whereas, the claimants have preferred the cross objections, being aggrieved by the deduction to an extent of 40% instead of 20%.
2. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that the impugned judgment, is illegal, bad and de hors the evidence produced on the record. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has taken sufficient steps and followed the procedure while determining the market value of the lands for the purpose of a compensation and on the basis of documents available on the record and other sale instances, the amount has been determined. It is submitted that the claimants have not been able to substantiate the fertility or the market value of the lands acquired by any documentary evidence. In absence of any evidence produced, the learned Judge, ought not to have awarded additional compensation. It is further submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer, was right in considering the sale deeds executed in the vicinity and while taking into account various factors qua the land in question, the market value has been determined; however, the learned Judge, failed to appreciate and has arrived at the additional compensation on a higher side. Considering the evidence available on the record - oral and documentary, there was no reason available to the Court below to have deviated from the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, which was in a right earnest.
Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025 undefined 2.1 It is submitted that the learned Judge, committed an error in
relying upon the District Valuation Report of the District Valuation Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Valuation Committee") inasmuch as, the market value determined, was on a higher side; however, the said market value, cannot be taken as a basis for determining the market value of the land in question. The determination of the market value at Rs.570/- was on erroneous basis. It is therefore urged that the appeals deserve consideration and the impugned judgment, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
3. On the other hand, Mr Jinesh H. Kapadia, learned Advocate appearing with Mr Mahesh P. Patel, learned Advocate for the original claimants submitted that it is by now well settled that if the Valuation Report was available, the same, can be made the basis for determining the market value. In the case on hand, the Valuation Committee consisting of the experts, namely, the Collector, the Town Planning Officer, after examining various factors, has determined the additional market value at the rate of Rs.570/- and that too of a small parcel of land admeasuring 2000 sq. mtrs. and therefore, the learned Judge, has rightly accepted the same and determined the additional market value at Rs.570/-. The only error which has been committed by the learned Judge, is applying 40% deduction instead of 20% deduction. It is further submitted that it is not in dispute that the acquisition is for the purpose of construction of spreading canal of Sujalam Suflam. It is further submitted that the acquisition, is common in the present case as well as in other cases wherein, the compensation is already determined and which has been confirmed by the coordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that the market value determined and confirmed by this Court of village Lakhani, has rightly been taken as a basis. Also, the distance between the village Lakhani and village Ghela, is hardly 2 kilometers which aspect, has remained undisputed. Therefore, on Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025 undefined the issue of the distance so also the potentiality, the land in question is similarly situated and hence, the additional amount of compensation as determined by the learned Judge, can be taken as a basis except the fact of deduction which, should have been 20% instead of 40%.
3.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer,Poona & Anr. reported in (1988) 3 SCC 751. It has been held and observed that the award of the Land Acquisition Officer, is merely an offer and the material utilized cannot be the basis for the Court, unless, produced and proved before it. It has also been held and observed that the Court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the material produced before it. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Deputy General Manager vs. Heirs of Decd. Ratanbhai Karsanbhai and Ors. passed in First Appeal No. 1942 of 2003 and other allied matters. It is therefore submitted that there was sufficient material before the Court below and more particularly, the report of the Valuation Committee which has determined the market value at Rs.570/-.
3.2 Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi Ravataji Lumbaji passed in R/First Appeal No. 669 of 2019 and other allied matters. It is submitted that the said judgment applies on all fours to the facts of the present case considering the similarity of the acquisition and date of issuance of section 4 notification and the distance between the two villages. It is submitted that in the said case, the Division Bench, while relying upon the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat Through Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore, reported in 2010 (3) GLH 447 , has Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025 undefined considered the deduction at 20% instead of 40%.
3.3 Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai & Ors. vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 584 wherein, the Apex Court, has held and observed that if the quality including the potentiality of two areas of land is similar then the distance between the two, would not by itself lead to a change in the respective market value. It has been further observed that the distance between the the two classes of land that by itself cannot derogate the claim of the claimants unless there are some such other materials to show that quality and potentiality of such land is inferior. It is submitted that in the case on hand, no evidence worth the name has been placed on record to substantiate that the land in question, is inferior to the land acquired previously of village Lakhani of for that matter of the very same village. In absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that the learned Judge, has committed any error in determining the market value. It is submitted that considering the evidence available on the record so also the the readily available market value, it cannot be said the the impugned judgment suffers from irregularity and illegality.
3.4 It is submitted that as per the provisions of section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894"), the interest, would be 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent years. However, in the operative portion, the learned Judge, though has granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum on additional compensation for the first year, there appears to be some typographical error in indicating the interest for the subsequent years inasmuch as, the rate mentioned is 12%. It is therefore urged that the judgment, indicating the rate of interest, may be suitably Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025 undefined modified.
3.5 It is further submitted that so far as reliance placed on the valuation report is concerned, the issue, is also no longer res integra in principle. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat Through Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., Vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore (supra) wherein, reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769 wherein, it has been held and observed that one of the recognised methods for determination of the market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committee, as expert evidence can therefore, form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It has also been observed that it will be open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline. Relying upon the said judgment, the Division Bench has held and observed that the Valuation Committee is comprising of expert body in the field of valuation, including the District Collector, etc. and therefore, there is no reason as to why the valuation made by the Valuation Committee while fixing the price for allotment of the land at the very village should not be taken into consideration.
3.6 It is therefore submitted that the valuation report by the Valuation Committee was very much in place dated 20.05.2004 and the learned Judge, has rightly adopted the market value as determined; however, it is reiterated that the error committed by the reference court, was in allowing the deduction at 40% instead of 20%. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment, deserves to be modified. It is submitted that if 20% deduction (Rs.114) is allowed to Rs.570/-, the same, would come to Rs.456/-.
Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025 undefined
Therefore, the correct market value derived, would be Rs.456/- per sq. mtr. (Rs.570 - Rs.114 = Rs.456). It is therefore urged that the cross objections, deserve to be allowed while the appeals of the State Government, deserve rejection.
4. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader could not controvert the said submission.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the paper-book made available on the record.
6. The record reveals that the lands of the claimants, are situated in village Ghela of Tharad taluka which have been acquired for the public purpose of spreading canals of Sujalam Suflam. Section 4 notification is dated 08.10.2004, while section 6 notification was published on 22.11.2004, followed by the award of the Land Acquisition Officer dated 31.12.2004 whereby, the Land Acquisition Officer has fixed the market value at the rate of Rs.2.70 per sq. mtr. Being aggrieved, the claimants have preferred the reference and the learned Judge, vide impugned judgment, has determined the additional compensation at Rs.350/- per sq. mtr. and has awarded the statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of the Act of 1894. While determining the additional compensation, the learned Judge, has allowed deduction of 40%. The additional compensation, then, available was Rs.350/- per sq. mtr. Pertinently, direction has been given to extend the statutory benefits as per the Act of 1894 with a direction of awarding 12% interest as per the provision of section 28 of the Act of 1894 instead of 15%.
7. The captioned appeals together with the cross objections are against the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025 undefined learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa. The acquisition, is common for village Lakhani as well as for the village in question. The distance between the two villages is undisputedly, rather admittedly, two kilometers. So far as the acquisition in connection with village Lakhani is concerned, the dispute has travelled upto this Court and the Division Bench in the case of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi Ravataji Lumbaji (supra) after considering the submissions and the evidence by the respective parties, has determined the market value at Rs.456/-. Relevant paragraphs 14 to 18, read thus:
"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 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 Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025 undefined 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 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.
16. We have considered the report of the District Valuation Committee, village : Lakhani dated 20.05.2004 produced on record at Exhs.40 & 41 i.e. as well as the Map of village produced on record. It is found out from the aforesaid documents that the price of the land of land bearing Survey No.152 pk. has been evaluated and fixed at Rs.510/- per sq.mtr. And Sujalam Safalam Canal passes through land bearing Survey Nos.153 & 211 pk. and the said lands are situated adjacent to the land owned by the original claimants. It is also found out from the record that the lands owned by the original claimants are situated within well developed area, which would reduce the expenditure behind the development and, therefore after acquiring the said land, the Government need not have to spend money for its development. Thus considering the above facts of the case on hand, the original claimants are entitled for deduction of 20% instead of 40%, which has been done in the present case.
17. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that we have also gone Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025 undefined through the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court including the finding given and conclusion arrived at by the learned Reference Court and found that except deduction of 40% instead of 20%, there is no error committed by the learned Reference Court, which would require interference from this Court. Hence, rest of the impugned judgment and award remain unaltered.
18. Therefore in view of the aforesaid observations made, First Appeals filed by the State of Gujarat are hereby dismissed. Whereas Cross Objections filed by the original claimants are allowed as prayed for. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.26 to 31 of 2005 is hereby modified to the extent that instead of compensation at Rs.333.50, which is already awarded by the Reference Court, the original claimants are entitled to get additional compensation at Rs.160/- per Sq.Mtr i.e. total compensation at Rs.493.50. Rest of the observation and direction would remain unaltered. Decree to be drawn accordingly. Record & Proceedings are sent back forthwith."
8. Village Ghela which, admittedly is an adjoining village to village Lakhani and therefore, there is no reason available to this Court to not refer to or rely upon the judgment of the coordinate bench. Moreover, nothing contrary has been pointed out by the appellant State dislodging the distance much less the potentiality of the land in question. The learned Judge, though has relied upon the report of the Valuation Committee and considered the market value at Rs.570/-; has applied the deduction of 40% instead of 20% which aspect, is also covered by the judgment of the coordinate Bench in the above referred case of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi Ravataji Lumbaji (supra). Therefore, considering the similarity of the case in all respect, this Court, deems it appropriate to apply 20% deduction instead of 40% which would be Rs.114/- The additional market value which then would be available, would be Rs.456/- (Rs.570 - Rs.114 =Rs.456).
9. The report of the Valuation Committee, was very much in place vide Exhibits 41 and 42. As against this, nothing has been Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025 undefined produced on the record by the appellant State, dislodging it. Therefore, examining the evidence produced by the respective parties before the Court below, one can safely come to the conclusion that no error has been committed by the learned Judge while determining the additional compensation at the rate of Rs.570/-.
10. Apt would be the judgment in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakor (supra). Paragraphs 27 and 28, read thus:
27.The Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 15 SCC, 769 on the contrary at paragraph 44 has observed as under:-
"44. One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert committee, as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by the statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed procedure."
28. In the present case, the valuation has been made by the Valuation Committee for giving opinion to the District Collector in exercise of the statutory power. The Valuation Committee is comprising of the expert body in the field of valuation, including the District Collector himself, T.P. Authority, etc. Therefore, there is no reason why the valuation made by the Valuation Committee of the Government for fixation of the price for allotment of the land at the very village by way of sale instance or price fixed by the Government for allotment of a land to an organization should not be taken into consideration."
11. In view of the above, this Court, is of the considered opinion that the learned Judge, has determined just and reasonable compensation relying upon the report of the Valuation Committee Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4651/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025 undefined dated 20.05.2004. So far as the deduction is concerned, considering the similarity and in absence of any distinguishing feature pointed out, it ought to have been 20% instead of 40%. In view thereof, the claimants would be entitled to claim compensation at Rs.456/- per sq. mtr. (Rs.570 - Rs.114(20% deduction)).
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the judgment is modified and the claimants are held to be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.456/- together with all the statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of section 28 of the Act of 1894. The direction to pay interest on additional compensation at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of taking the possession for first year and thereafter, 12% p.a. till the realization, is also modified and the State, is directed to pay interest on the additional compensation at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of taking possession for the first year and at the rate of 15% p.a. till the realization of the payment payable, as per section 28 of the Act of 1894.
13. The State Government, therefore, is directed to calculate the differential amount and deposit the same within a period of ten weeks' from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. It is also directed that trial Court, shall then disburse the remaining amount to the claimants, after due and proper verification.
14. First appeals are dismissed accordingly and cross objections stand partly allowed. Connected civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) Sd/-
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) RAVI P. PATEL Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Thu May 08 2025 Downloaded on : Fri May 09 00:59:22 IST 2025