Gujarat High Court
Dosani Abhrambhai Dadmohmmadbhai vs Gujarat State Through Special Ladn ... on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO.3528 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
DOSANI ABHRAMBHAI DADMOHMMADBHAI & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT STATE THROUGH SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER &
ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR MANOHAR RAHEVAR, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present First Appeal, the appellants herein -
original claimants have challenged the judgment and award dated 6.4.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.71 of 2011.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. A. B. Gateshaniya for the appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manohar Rahevar for the respondents. Perused the record. Page 1 of 10 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate for the appellants at the outset contended that the lands bearing revenue survey No.1765 paiki Hector 1-46-32 of village Jambu, Taluka Limbadi, District Surendranagar was acquired by the acquiring body for the construction of canal of Narmada project. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1889 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were published on 1.12.1997 and 8.5.1998 respectively. The land of the parties was acquired in respect of Land Acquisition Case No.23 of 1993. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed market value of the land at Rs.42,756/-. The award was assailed by the appellants herein before the learned reference Court, however, the learned reference Court rejected the reference on the ground of limitation. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
4. It is further contended that the reference proceedings Page 2 of 10 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined under Section 18 of the Act which was preferred by the claimant - appellant was well within the limitation. It is submitted that the respondent herein did not issue notice as required in sub section (2) of Section 12 of the Act which mandates that the Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to the persons interested who are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made. It is an undisputed fact that on the date of pronouncement of the award dated 28.2.1999, neither claimants nor their representatives were present and, therefore, the Collector was under the legal duty to issue notice of intimating award. However, if the notice dated 28.2.1999 is perused, no details with regard to the awarded amount has been mentioned. Even the names of appellants are not mentioned in the notice. It is therefore submitted that the notice exhibit 69 cannot be termed as a notice as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act. It is further submitted that in the report dated 19.4.2001 which was submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, in Clause No.4, the learned Collector has specifically Page 3 of 10 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined mentioned that the reference proceeding is within the period limitation. However, learned reference Court erred in interpreting Section 69 notice and found that the reference proceeding is beyond the period of limitation.
5. It is further contended that in the cases where the notice is served upon the claimants, the period of limitation for challenging the award is 42 days and in the cases where the notice under Section 12(2) is not served upon claimants, the period of limitation is 6 months within which the interested persons may challenge the impugned award. In the present case, notice as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act has not been served upon the claimants. The reference proceedings which was initiated on 14.6.1999 is within the period of limitation.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, learned advocate for the appellants prayed for remand of the proceedings for fresh adjudication on merits. No other submissions are canvassed except the above.
Page 4 of 10 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined
7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Manohar Rahevar for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and award and further contended that the reference proceeding was beyond the period of limitation. It is contended that when the notice was tried to be served upon the claimants, the appellants refused to accept the notice. Notice was sent to all appellants by Registered Post AD which was duly served upon appellants on 26.2.1999. It is, therefore, contended that the reference Court has rightly held that the reference proceedings are beyond the period of limitation. No other submissions are canvassed except the above.
8. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the record and proceedings.
9. On perusal of record and proceedings, the limited question which is required to be answered in this appeal is whether Page 5 of 10 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined Exhibit 69 can be construed as a notice as contemplated under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. To answer the controversy, it would be profitable to refer at this stage Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act which is reproduced hereunder:
Section 12 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of his award to such of the persons interested as are not present personally or by their representatives when the award is made.
10. Sub section (2) of Section 12 of the Act mandates the Collector to give immediate notice of his award to persons interested who were not present or were not represented by their representatives when the award is made. It is not the case of the respondents herein that the appellants were personally present or their representatives were present when the award is made. Exhibit 69 is the notice issued by the learned Collector on 20.2.1999. If the said notice is perused, it appears that the notice is a cryptic notice and is issued in mechanical manner and names of appellants are not mentioned in the notice. The notice also does not indicate the amount of price of the land which has Page 6 of 10 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined been assessed by the land acquisition officer. The notice only indicates in the compensation column "as per award". The notice also does not indicate the amount which has been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The purpose of giving an immediate notice of the award is to see that the land losers who have lost their precious land in the acquisition proceedings must know the determination of the valuation of the lands so that if the land owners are not satisfied with the assessment of the price of the land, they can raise their objections and thereafter the objections can be referred to the learned Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act by the Collector. The report dated 19.4.2001 prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer produced at page No.139 of the paper-book indicates that in clause No.4, it is mentioned that the reference proceeding is within limitation and the reasons assigned in such column is non-acceptance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act by claimants. Thus, as per the report submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and also as per the chart with regard to the service of notice to the appellants as Page 7 of 10 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined well as other owners of different lands produced at page number 203 of the paper book, indicates that the notice has not been accepted by the appellants. Until the essential content of the award were brought to the knowledge of parties affected by actually communicating award, no valid notice under Section 12(2) of the Act can be said to have been served upon claimants. Mere issuing a notice without mentioning the amount of award and other required details by Land Acquisition Officer in determining the award, in stricto senso, Exh.69 is not a notice as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act.
11. Thus, on considering the evidence on record, it is established fact surfaces on record that the notice under Section 12(2) of the Act has not been received by the appellants which is mandatory under the Land Acquisition Act. The learned reference Court, in my view has faulted in considering Exhibit 69, a notice as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act.
Page 8 of 10 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:24 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined
12. As discussed herein above, the notice Exh.69 lacks details of the award and, therefore, Exh.69 cannot be termed as a notice which is contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act. It is absolutely non application of mind on the part of the authority while issuing notice Exh.69.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the impugned judgment and award dated 6.4.2011 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.71 of 2011 is required to be quashed and set aside. Order accordingly. The Land Acquisition Reference Case in question is hereby remanded back to the learned Reference Court for fresh consideration. The appellants herein - original claimants as well as respondents are permitted to lead the evidence, documentary as well as oral, and shall cooperate the learned Reference Court in expeditious hearing of the reference case. The learned Reference Court shall decide the reference case on remand on merits within a period of 6 (Six) Months from the date of receipt of the present Page 9 of 10 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:24 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025 undefined judgment / order.
14. The appeal is allowed in above terms. The Record & Proceedings may be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith. Interim Relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith. Direct Service is permitted. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 10 of 10 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Nov 20 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Nov 20 21:55:24 IST 2025