Gujarat High Court
Legal Heirs Of Decd. Govind Jadav vs State Of Gujarat on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH Court OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 740 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 740 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 741 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 742 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 743 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 744 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 745 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 747 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 748 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. GOVIND JADAV & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3
MR.RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Date : 14/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are filed by the appellant-original claimants challenging the award passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Land Acquisition Case No.383 of 1988 dated 06.10.2012 whereby the learned Court has rejected the claim of the claimant for additional compensation on the ground that reference is barred by limitation.
1.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that two groups of appeals are before this Court challenging the different award passed under section 18 of Land Acquisition Act, rejecting the references on the same ground of delay. The details of both the groups are mentioned hereinbelow:
F.A. No.740 of F.A. No.742 of
2020 2020
Village Virpar, Jamnagar Virpar, Jamnagar
LRC No 383/1988 420/1987
Section 4 11/05/1978 --
Section 6 16/11/1978 --
Section 11 Dated 19.02.1979 Dated 08.01.1979
Page 2 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
award Declared on Declared on
26.03.1979 12.03.1979
Awarded Rs.70/- per Are (For Rs.70/- per Are (For
amount Jirayat Dry Land) Jirayat Dry Land)
under and Rs.100/- per and Rs.100/- per
section 11 Are (For Jirayat Are (For Jirayat
Irrigation Land) Irrigation Land)
and Rs.1 per Are
(For Kharaba Land)
Section 18 25.11.1987 25.11.1987
filed on
Judgment of 06.10.2012 06.10.2012
section 18 Dismissed Dismissed
Purpose of Construction of Branch Canal for Und
acquisition Irrigation Project
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval for the
appellant and learned AGP Mr.Rahul Dave for the State. 2.1. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that learned reference Court has committed error in dismissing the references filed under section 18 by the claimant only on the ground of delay without examining the same on merits. It is submitted by learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval that the contention taken by the appellant with regard to non serving of notice under Page 3 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined section 12(2) was rebutted by the opponent neither during cross-examination nor through independent evidence. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that though learned Court has believed the case of the present appellant with regard to non service of the notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act however, has dismissed the reference on the ground that appellant, on receiving the compensation has not filed the references within a period of six months from the date of receiving of the compensation. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that even if the appellant has received the compensation however, the statutory requirement of section 12(2) when it is not complied with, learned Court could have decided the references on merits instead of dismissing the same on the ground of delay. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that in identically situated references, the awards passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 was enhanced by this Court in different group of appeals and of the same year notification, amount of Rs.750/- per Are was awarded for the land pertaining to Jirayat Rs.937.50 per Are for the land pertaining to irrigation. Learned Page 4 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that said award was also passed for the similar scheme namely construction of branch canal for Und Irrigation Project. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that learned reference Court by not entertaining the reference has confirmed the award passed under section 11 of the Act whereby meager amount of Rs.70/- per Are was awarded with jiyarat dry land Rs.100/- per Are was awarded for the land of jirayat irrigation land and Rs.1/-per Are was awarded for kharaba land. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that these are the claimants whose lands were acquired under the compulsory acquisition and without awarding the value either at the jantri rate or market rate, learned Court has committed error and therefore, impugned award deserves to be set aside. 2.2. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval has relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs Dy. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500 and has submitted that the legislature has necessarily imposed the obligation under section 12(2) of the Act on the Collector and if the same is not complied with then the Page 5 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined references which are filed are required to be decided on merits rather than on delay. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval has relied on the decision of the this Court by the Division Bench in the case of Heirs of deceased Aher Naran Maiya Bhupat Naranbhai Vs State of Gujarat in First Appeal No. 2864 of 2019 and submitted that even if the claimants have received the compensation but with protest then the claimant cannot be held dis-entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation. Submitting the same, learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval prayed to allow the First Appeals and set aside the impugned judgments.
2.3. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Rahul Dave submits that even if the notice under section 12(2) has not been received however, while accepting the amount of compensation and not challenging the same within prescribed time limit of six months, one can say that the claimants have waived their rights for enhancing the compensation. Learned AGP Mr.Rahul Dave submits that it is the duty of the claimants to prove their case and to make specific averments in the reference with regard to dates of knowledge and in failing to perform that duty no Page 6 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined relief can be granted in favour of the appellant and therefore, no error has been committed by the learned reference Court in dismissing reference on the ground of delay.
3. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and referring the judgment as well as the record and proceedings, it emerges that at the stage of filing the application under section 18, the contention was taken by the claimants that the claimants were not present at the time of the award under section 11 neither they have been informed with regard to the award. It is also contended that notice under section 12(2) has not been served till date. It is stated in the reference application that on making inquiry they came into knowledge that award has been passed by the Acquisition Officer and the amount has been accepted with protest. It is contended that the amount awarded is very meager amount and below the rate of jantri as well as the market value and therefore, has claimed to enhance the compensation. It emerges from the records that during the chief examination of one Jivabhai Mavabhai Ghadiya Page 7 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined who was examined below Exh.12, a similar contention was raised which was remained unrebutted during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the other side. Additionally, before the learned court, the documentary evidence pertaining to identical award in LAQ No.106/1978 was placed on record. The sale deed pertaining to the land of Patel Govindbhai Vastabhai was also relied as well as copy of the jantri of village Virpur was placed on record. On referring those documents, it emerges that the market value of the acquired land was much higher than the award passed by the learned Acquisition Officer under section 11. On referring the evidence of the witness namely Somajibhai Adaliyabhai Dungariya was examined below Exh.27, no contention was raised with regard to the statutory requirement of section 12(2). It is undisputed that no written statement was filed neither any contention with regard to being barred by limitation was taken by the opponent. However, the learned reference Court suo motu, taking cognizance of the fact, that reference is filed within a period of six months. Undoubtedly, this being a question of law can be taken into consideration by the learned Page 8 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined reference Court however, in absence of fulfilling statutory requirement of section 12 (2), in the opinion of this Court, learned Court has committed error in dismissing the reference on the ground of delay.
4. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs Dy. Land Acquisition Officer reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500 wherein it is held that:
5.In the dealing with this question it is relevant to bear in mind the legal character of the award made by the Collector under S.
12. In a sense it is a decision of the Collector reached by him after holding an enquiry as prescribed by the Act. It is a decision, inter alia, in respect of the amount of compensation which should be paid to the person interested in the property acquired; but legally the award cannot be treated as a decision; it is in law an offer or tender of the compensation determined by the Collector to the owner of the property under acquisition. If the owner accepts the offer no further proceeding is required to be taken; the amount is paid and compensation proceedings are concluded. If, however, the owner does not accept the offer, S. 18 gives him the statutory right of having the question determined by Court, and it is the amount of compensation which the Court may determine that would bind both the owner and the Collector. In that case it is on the amount thus determined judicially that the acquisition proceedings would be concluded. It is because of this nature of the award that the award can be appropriately described as a tender of offer made by the Collector on behalf of the Government to the Page 9 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined owner of the property for his acceptance. In Ezra v. Secretary of State, ILR 30 Cal 36 at p. 86, it has been held that "the meaning to be attached to the word "award" under S. 11 and its nature and effect must be arrived at not from the mere use of the same expression in both instances but from the examination of the provisions of the law relating to the Collector's proceedings culminating in the award. The consideration to which we have referred satisfy us that the Collector acts in the matter of the enquiry and the valuation of the land only as an agent of the Government and not as judicial office; and that consequently, although the Government is bound by his proceedings, he persons interested are not concluded by his finding regarding the value of the land or the compensation to be awarded"
Then the High Court has added that such tender once made is binding on the Government and the Government cannot require that the value fixed by its own officer acting on its behalf should be open to question at its own instance before the Civil Court. The said case was taken before the Privy Council in Ezra v. Secretary of State, ILR 32 Cal 605 (PC), and their Lordship have expressly approved of the observations made by the High Court to which we have just referred. Therefore, if the award made by the Collector is in law no more than an offer made on behalf of the Government to the owner of the property then the making of the award as properly understood must involve the communication of the offer to the party concerned. That is the normal requirement under the contract law and its applicability to cases of award made under the Act cannot be reasonably excluded. Thus considered the date of the award cannot be determined solely by reference to the time when the award is signed by the Collector or delivered by him in his office: it must involve the consideration of Page 10 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined the question as to when it was known to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If that be the true position then the literal and mechanical construction of the words "the date of the award occurring in the relevant section would not be appropriate.
6.There is yet another point which leads to the same conclusion. If the award is treated as an administrative decision taken by the Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to be acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects the rights of the owner of the property and in that sense, like all deci sions which affect persons, it is essentially fair and just that the said decision should be communicated to the said party. The knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual or constructive, is an essen-tial element which must be satisfied before the decision can be brought into force. Thus considered the mak ing of the award cannot consist merely in the physical act of writing the award or signing it or even filing it in the office of the Collector; it must involve the communication of the said award to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If the award is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are affected by it it can be said to be made when pronounced. If the date for the pronouncement of the award is commu-nicated to the party and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously announced the award is said to be communicated to the said party even if the said party is not actually present on the date of its pronounce ment. Similarly if without notice of the date of its pronouncement, an award is pronounced and a party is not present the award can be said to be made when it is communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an Page 11 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined essential requirement of fairplay and natural justice the expression "the date of the award" used in the proviso must mean the date when the award is either communicated to the party or is known by him either actually or constructively. In our opin-ion, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of the Collector's award" used in the proviso to Section 18 in a literal or mechanical way.
7.In this connection it is material to recall the fact that under Section 12(2) it is obligatory on the Collector to give immediate notice of the award to the persons interested as are not present personally or by their rep-resentatives when the award is made. This requirement itself postulates the necessity of the communication of the award to the party concerned. The legislature recognised that the making of the award under Section 11 followed by its filing under Section 12(1) would not meet the requirements of justice before bringing the award into force. It thought that the communication of the award to the party concerned was also necessary, and so by the use of the mandatory words an obligation is placed on the Collector to communicate the award immediately to the person concerned. It is significant that the section requires the Collector to give notice of the award immediately after making it. This provision lends support to the view which we have taken about the construction of the expression "from the date of the Collector's award" in the proviso to Section 18. It is because communication of the order is regarded by the legislature as necessary that Section 12(2) has im- posed an obligation on the Collector and if the relevant clause in the proviso is read in the light of this statu-tory requirement it tends to show that the literal and mechanical construction of the said clause would be wholly inappropriate. It would indeed be a Page 12 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined very curious result that the failure of the Collector to discharge his obligation under Section 12 (2) should directly tend to make ineffective the right of the party to make an application under Section 18, and this result could not possibly have been intended by the legislature.
4.1. An identical view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Heirs of deceased Aher Naran Maiya Bhupat Naranbhai Vs State of Gujarat in First Appeal No. 2864 of 2019, wherein also the Division Bench has held as under:
12.In the case of Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors. vs. Deputy Collector(supra), the Division Bench of this Court, has held that reading the language of sub-section (2) of Section 12 it suggests that there is an obligation on the part of the Collector not merely to intimate about the passing of the award but has to communicate the essential contents of the award, if not a copy of the award. Paragraph 3 of the Judgment, reads thus:-
"3. The question, therefore, is whether under sec. 12(2)of the Land Acquisition Act, there is an obligation upon the Collector merely to intimate about the passing of the award or he is obliged to convey the matters contained in the award by serving either a copy of the award or the essential part of it. In State of Punjab v.
Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the purpose of the notice under Sec. 12(2) in the context of a plea as to whether mere knowledge of the passing of the award would be sufficient as a starting point reckoned for the purpose of filing a reference application. It is in dealing with this that the Supreme Court observed: Page 13 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined "Now, knowledge of the award does not mean a mere knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award. These contents may be known either actually or constructively. If the award is communicated to a party under Sec.12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he reads it or not. Similarly when a party is present in Court either personally or through his representative when the award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the award must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the award."
This Court has expressed the same view referring to the above said decision in Rasulkhanjiv. H. P. Rathod, (1975) 16 Guj LR 911. In this view, it is clear that there is -an obligation on the part of the Collector not merely to intimate about the passing of the award but he has to communicate the essential contents of the award, if not a copy of the award. That has not been fulfilled in this case and we direct that this shall be done within a month."
5. The sole contention taken by the learned AGP Mr.Rahul Dave with regard to accepting the amount of compensation if one would examine the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh and Ors Vs State of Punjab and Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 67 wherein, the Apex Court has held as under:
Having regard to the contiguity of these lands the High Court is Page 14 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined correct in its valuation. Besides, the date of notification, issued under Section 4 of the Act, is 4.10.1978 while Exhibit R6 is nearer to it, namely, 16.8.1978, in comparison to Exhibit A6 dated 14.1.1977. Inasmuch as the appellants have filed an application for reference under Section 18 of the Act that will manifest their intention. Therefore, the protest against the award of the Collector is implied notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation. The District Judge and the High Court, therefore, fell into patent error in denying the enhanced compensation to the appellants.
6. Considering the over all facts of the present case, in the opinion of this Court, even if the compensation has been accepted but without protest the claimant cannot be said to be disentitled for enhancement of the amount and the reference, in absence of satisfying the provisions of section 12 (2), cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
In that background, the present appeals succeed and allowed accordingly. The land reference cases be remanded back to the learned reference Court and restored to its original file and learned Court shall decide the same on merits. As noted above, acquisition proceedings were started in the year 1978 the learned Court is directed to decided the references within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order, after providing opportunity of hearing both the Page 15 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025 undefined parties and leading the evidence independently. It is open for the parties to place on record the relevant material in support of their claim.
7. Resultantly, these appeals are allowed. Record and proceedings are sent back.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION:
In view of the judgment passed above, civil application is disposed of.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) ARCHANA S. PILLAI Page 16 of 16 Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025