Gujarat High Court
Kantibhai @ Kamalnayan Muljibhai vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 9 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1225 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
KANTIBHAI @ KAMALNAYAN MULJIBHAI & ORS.
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Appellant(s) No. 2
MS KRISHNA DESAI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Defendant(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 09/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") at the instance of the appellants - original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 31.01.2007 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 21:00:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined Land Reference Case No. 1211 of 1997 preferred under Section 18 of the Act, whereby, the learned Judge has awarded additional compensation of Rs.707.50p. per Are. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the learned Judge has also awarded all statutory benefits arising out of the Land Acquisition Act.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, the lands of the claimants bearing block no. 65, situated at village Bharthana admeasuring Are Sq.mt. 0-23-25 were acquired by the Land Acquisition Case No.46 of 1994 for the purpose of construction of Narmada Yojna B-3 minor branch. It is further the case of the claimants that notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 01.12.1994 and notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 09.12.1995 and ultimately, the award was passed under Section 11 of the Act on 26.08.1996. It is further the case of the claimants that the Land Acquisition Officer passed an award of Rs.6.67 Sq.mt. equivalent to Rs.667.50p. per Are by way of compensation for their acquired lands. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the claimants had filed the aforesaid Land Reference Case Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 21:00:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined claiming Rs.12,132.50p. per Are, however, the Reference Court awarded only additional amount of Rs.707.50p. per Are. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of the Reference Court, the claimants have filed the present appeal.
3. Heard Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants - original claimants and Ms. Krishna Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent - State Authorities.
4. Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellants, has submitted that from the same group of acquisition for the village Bharthana, identical First Appeals have been decided by the Division Bench of this Court being First Appeal No.3394 of 2012 and allied matters on 15.10.2012, which attained finality and was not further challenged before higher forum. Relying upon the same, learned advocate Mr. Prajapati has submitted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench in the aforesaid group of First Appeals, the present appeal is also required to be allowed as the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the aforesaid group of appeals preferred by the respondent State Authorities.
Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 21:00:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined
5. As against that, Ms. Krishna Desai, learned AGP has submitted that the Reference court has rightly considered the facts of the present case and the situation of the lands, sale instances for the last five years at Exh.-10. She has submitted that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly awarded the amount of Rs.667.50p. Per Are and therefore, the enhancement claimed by the appellants is very excessive and on higher side. She has further submitted that the Reference Court has rightly modified and awarded Rs.707.50p. Per Are from Rs.667.50p., which is in consonance with the earlier acquisition made from the same village and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present appeal and the present appeal is required to be dismissed, however, the learned AGP is unable to controvert the fact that in the similar group of appeals, the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and has enhanced the amount of compensation and therefore, she has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in view of the decision of the Division Bench.
6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 21:00:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined respective parties and perused the material place on record. I have also perused the impugned award passed by the Reference Court. On perusal of the same, it appears that the Reference Court has decided the reference mainly relying upon the last five years' sale instances at Exh.-10. So far as the situation of the lands acquired of the present appellants at block no.65 of village Bharthana is concerned, it is required to be considered that whether they were irrigated lands or not, whether they were situated nearby the center point of the road or not, whether they were situated nearby village boundary or not and therefore, under such circumstance, the Reference Court has not properly appreciated the same while passing the impugned award.
6.1 Considering the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in group of First Appeals relied upon by the learned advocate Mr. Prajapati, wherein, the Reference Court had considered sale instances and acquisition of lands of village Zanor which was adjacent to village Bharthana, where the lands were acquired for the purpose of Power Electricity Company and for development in the village Zanor itself on account of the power project. As against same, so far as village Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 21:00:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined Bharthana is concerned, it has not come on record that there was any specific development like establishment of any industry or otherwise. Under the circumstances, 40% deduction towards the development factor between the lands at village Zanor and village Bharthana made by the Reference Court could also not be said that there was erroneous approach on the part of the Reference Court. However, in my opinion, on perusal of the fact that while considering the appreciation at the rate of 10% per annum, the Reference Court has committed an error in as much as it has given cumulative effect at the rate of 10% per annum as against the simple increase of 10% per annum. If the amount of Rs.75.00 is taken as the basis, time gap between the acquisition of the lands at village Zanor was in the year 1991 whereas in the present case it was in 1994, therefore, roughly it can be said to be difference of three years. If 10% appreciation is considered at simple rate per year at the rate of Rs.7.50, Rs.30.00 would be required to be added considering time gap of three years and the resultant amount would come to Rs.105.00 per square meter being the market value of the lands under acquisition. Out of the aforesaid amount, Rs.6.67 per square meter is already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 21:00:23 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.97.95p. per square meter and if the said figure is rounded off, it would be Rs.98.00 per square meter as per the decision of the Division Bench. Under the circumstances, the award of the Reference Court needs to be modified to the aforesaid extent only. Even the first award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer qua village Zanor was neither challenged nor carried further before the higher forum and relying upon the said decision, the Division Bench has considered the group of First Appeals and thus, in the present case also, the appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of compensation. Other benefits granted by the Reference Court, such as increase in the value at 12% per annum and solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent year are, by way of statutory consequence and, therefore, no interference is called for.
7. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, it is held that the claimants would be entitled to the additional compensation of Rs.98.00 per square meter. Further, the claimants shall also be entitled to increase at the rate of 12% per annum under section 23(1-A) and solatium at the rate of Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 21:00:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025 undefined 30% as per section 23(2) and interest at the rate of 9% for the first year and 15% for the subsequent years as per section 28 of the Act until the amount is paid or deposited in the Court. Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
7.1 The aforesaid amount alongwith interest and solatium shall be deposited within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of order of this Court. On deposit of the amount, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the appellants - original claimants after due verification of their bank details through RTGS/NEFT.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 21:00:23 IST 2025