Gujarat High Court
Barot Kamlaben Koderbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 6 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3905/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3905 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
BAROT KAMLABEN KODERBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR MANISH S SHAH(5859) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 06/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Manish S. Shah for the appellant, learned AGP Mr. Rahul Dave for respondent No.1. Though served, nobody appears for respondent No.2. Perused the record.
2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing.
3. At the outset, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the common oral judgment dated 26.4.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal Nos.1099 of 2023 and allied matters. It is further submitted that since the issue is squarely covered, this Court may pass similar order in this matter too.
4. For the sake of convenience, relevant portion of judgment dated 26.4.2023 passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in First Appeal No.1099 of 2023 and allied matters is reproduced hereunder:
"3. The appellants - original claimants challenge the common judgement and Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:54:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3905/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined award passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Modasa, District Arvalli dated 29.9.2016 in LAR Case Nos.1815 of 2010 to 1833 of 2010 (main being LAR No.1815 of 2010) (in First Appeals No.1099, 1114, 1109, 1107, 1104, 1103, 1102, 1115, 1110, and 1106 of 2023 - LAR Nos.1819, 1815, 1824, 1817, 1832, 1816, 1828, 1831, 1827, and 1823 of 2010 respectively) and common judgement and award passed by the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Modasa, District Arvalli dated 31.8.2017 in LAR Case Nos.1788 to 1792 of 2010 (main being LAR No.1790 of 2010) (in First Appeals No.1108, 1112, and 1113 of 2023 - LAR Nos.1792, 1789 and 1788 of 2010 respectively) .
3.1. The appellants - the original claimants, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, whereby land being non-irrigated (bin-piyat) had been fixed at Rs.9/- per sq. mtrs., and irrigated land (piyat) had been valued at Rs.12/- per sq. mtrs., (in LAR Nos.1819, 1815, 1824, 1817, 1832, 1816, 1828, 1831, 1827, and 1823 of 2010) and Rs.11/- per sq. mtrs., (in LAR Nos.1792, 1789 and 1788 of 2010) had preferred the above mentioned Land Reference Cases before the learned Reference Court.
3.2. It would be pertinent to mention that the lands in question had been acquired for the purpose of constructing Lank Jalashay Canal and whereas Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 4.12.2008 and whereas Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 25.8.2010 (in LAR Nos.1819, 1815, 1824, 1817, 1832, 1816, 1828, 1831, 1827, and 1823 of 2010) and Notification under Section 4 was published on 5.8.2008 and under Section 6 was published on 30.7.2009 (in LAR Nos.1792, 1789 and 1788 of 2010). It would appear that the Land Acquisition Officer had declared his award on 1.7.2010/27.4.2010 fixing the market value of the land as noted herein above and whereas the same had been challenged in Reference and whereas the learned Reference Court has fixed the rate at Rs.114/- per sq. mtrs / Rs.80/- per sq. mtrs. It would appear that other statutory benefits based upon the said enhancement was also directed to be paid to the appellants.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Manish Shah, on behalf of the appellants would base his submission on two decisions of the learned Reference Court namely decision in Land Reference Case No.113 of 2017 and allied cases decided on 9.7.2021 and Land Reference Case Nos.17 to 21 of 2011 (main being Reference Case No.17/2011) decided on 24.1.2017. It would be pertinent to mention here that Land Reference Case No.113 of 2017 had been decided by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bayad, Distirct Arvalli and Land Reference Case No.17/2017 had been decided by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa, Arvalli. It is the contention of learned Advocate Mr.Shah on behalf of the appellants that in the judgement passed in LAR No.113/2017, the learned Reference Court was concerned with lands situated in Village Demai, Taluka Bayad, District Sabarkantha. Learned Advocate would submit that the land in question had been acquired for the purpose of Sujlam Suflam Spreading Canal and whereas Notification under Section 4 had been issued on 16.10.2004 and Notification under Section 6 had been published on 10.12.2004. Learned Advocate would further submit that the Land Acquisition Officer had fixed the market value of Jirayat land at Rs.6/- per sq. mtrs., and whereas learned Reference Court had fixed the market value at Rs.300/- per sq. mtrs. Learned Advocate would submit that the State Government had not challenged the said decision by filing First Appeal and whereas the same had become final between the parties.
4.1. Learned Advocate would submit that while the land in question i.e. the land concerning the present First Appeals is land situated at Village Borol and whereas the potentiality of the land situated at Village Borol and land situated at Village Demai are the same. Learned Advocate would refer to and rely upon the decision dated 24.1.2017 in LAR No.17 of 2011. According to learned Advocate Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:54:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3905/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined Mr.Shah, in the said judgement, the learned Reference Court had inter alia observed that the land situated at Village Demai and Borol are situated adjacent to each other and whereas the lands of both the villages appear to have the same potentiality. Learned Advocate would submit that since the land situated at Village Demai has been valued at Rs.300/- per sq. mtrs., by learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge in LAR No.113/2017 and since it appears that the land situated at Village Demai and land situated in the present village Borol are adjacent to each other and whereas it is observed in the judgement passed by the learned Reference Court in LAR No.17/2011 that the lands of both the villages have almost similar potentiality and whereas since both the decisions have not been challenged by the State Government and whereas no appeals have been filed against the same. Learned Advocate would submit that decisions in both the cases having become final, for the reasons set out in the said decisions, this Court may allow the First Appeals and may fix the market value of the land at Rs.300/- per sq. mtrs., as fixed by the learned Reference Court in LAR No.113/2017.
5. This appeal is vehemently objected to by learned AGP Ms.Surbhi Bhati on behalf of the respondent State, who would submit that the lands situated in different villages in absence of any material particulars ought not to be treated by this Court as having the same potentiality and whereas according to learned AGP, for the said reasons, this Court may not entertain the First Appeals.
5.1. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati has also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Basant Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Others, reported in (1996) 11 SCC 542 more particularly paragraph 52 thereof to submit that while the Hon'ble Apex Court has inter alia held that the entire lands even of the same villages should not be treated as one unit for the purpose of determining compensation and whereas according to learned AGP Ms.Bhati, in the instant case, relying upon a decision in case of a different village, the appellants are seeking indulgence of this Court for enhancement of compensation and whereas according to learned AGP, the said proposition may not be accepted by this Court.
6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the impugned judgement as well as the records.
7. The following issues in the considered opinion of this Court arise for consideration:-
7.1. Whether the judgement and award passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Modasa, District Arvalli in LAR No.17 of 2011 and the judgement and award passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Bayad, District Arvalli in LAR No.113 of 2017 could be treated as comparable instances ?
7.2. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhancement of compensation as granted in case of LAR No.113 of 2017 issued by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Bayad, District Arvalli ? 7.3. What final order ?
8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that by way of the impugned decision in LAR Nos.1815 of 2010 to 1833 of 2010 learned Sr. Civil Judge, Modasa, District Arvalli vide judgement and award dated 29.9.2016 had enhanced the market value of the land for the purpose of compensation from Rs.9/- for non-irrigated land and Rs.12/- for irrigated land per sq. mtrs., and by way of impugned decision in LAR Case Nos.1788 to 1792 of 2010, the learned Sr. Civil Judge, Modasa, District Arvalli vide judgement and award dated 31.8.2017 had enhanced the market value of the land for the purpose of compensation from Rs.11/-. The case of the appellants being that the lands in question are situated in village Borol and whereas in the decision of the learned Reference Court being the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:54:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3905/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined Modasa, District Arvalli in LAR No.17 of 2011 and allied matters had inter alia held that the lands of village Borol are similar in potentiality to the lands situated in the adjacent village namely Village Demai. It is also the case of the appellants that in case of Village Demai, the learned Reference Court being the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Bayad, District Arvalli in LAR No.113 of 2017 and allied matters had inter alia fixed the market value of the land at Rs.300/- per sq. mtrs., and whereas considering the same the land in the present case should also be valued at Rs.300/- per sq. mtrs., and the appellants should be directed to be entitled for compensation at the said rate.
9. In this regard, two very pertinent issues are required to be referred to namely; (1) in case of LAR No.17 of 2011 and allied matters decided by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Modasa, District Arvalli, the learned Reference had inter alia observed that while the lands in the said case were situated in Village Demai, the same was located adjacent to Village Borol i.e. the village in which the present lands are situated. It would also appear that in case of LAR No.17 of 2011, the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded an amount of Rs.11/- per sq. mtrs., for the acquired land and whereas the learned Trial Court had taken the judgement and award in LAR Nos.1815 to 1833 of 2010 dated 29.9.2016 as the basis and had enhanced the market value of the land for the purpose of compensation to Rs.110.20 per sq. mtrs.
As it appears, the said decision dated 29.9.2016 is the very decision which is impugned in the present group of First Appeals; and (2) it would also appear that the decision of the learned Reference Court in LAR No.17 of 2011 and allied matters had not been challenged by the Government and whereas it would also appear that the claimants had approached this Court by preferring First Appeal Nos.1098, 1100, 1101, 1105 and 1111 of 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation. This Court vide a decision dated 21.3.2023, relying upon the judgement and award dated 9.7.2021 in LAR Nos.113 to 121 of 2017 passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Bayad, District Arvalli had enhanced the value of the land from Rs.114/- per sq. mtrs., to Rs.300/- per sq. mtrs.
10. From the above, the following pertinent aspect could be made out:-
10.1. The judgement impugned in the present set of appeals had been the basis for the learned Reference Court to pass judgement and award dated 24.1.2017 in LAR No.17 of 2011 and allied matters;
10.2. Relying upon the judgement and award dated 9.7.2021 in LAR No.113 of 2017 and allied cases, this Court in appeals preferred against the judgement and award dated 24.1.2017 in LAR No.17 of 2011 and allied matters had enhanced the compensation.
10.3. In that view of the matter, more particularly since even the submissions made by learned AGP was also in similar line, this Court seeks to reproduced paragraphs No.9, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the decision dated 21.3.2023 in First Appeal No.1098 of 2023 and allied matters as herein below for benefit:-
"9. At the outset, it is required to be noted that while the fact of the judgement and award dated 9.7.2021 in LAR Nos.113 to 121 of 2017 not being challenged before this Court is not in dispute, it is also not in dispute that the amount in question i.e. the enhanced amount has already been paid by the State Government to the claimants. Under such circumstances, the only aspect, which requires consideration would be whether the lands, which were subject matter of the present Land Acquisition Reference cases and the lands, which were subject matter of the Land Acquisition Reference Nos.113 to 121 of 2017 are comparable instances. In this regard, it would be pertinent to mention that a perusal of the impugned decision would reveal that the lands, which had been acquired were for the Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:54:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3905/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined purpose of constructing a canal and whereas the lands were contiguous to each other, more particularly for facilitating the construction of canal and all the lands in question were generally agricultural lands, more particularly situated in the same village, Demai.
9.1 It also requires to be noted that insofar as the lands, which were subject matter of judgement and award dated 9.7.2021 were all agricultural lands, and whereas from the perusal of the entire judgement, it does not appear that there was any additional circumstances, which had weighed with the Court for fixing valuation of the lands in question. It would appear that while the learned Reference Court has inter alia discussed with regard to lands situated in adjoining villages, where the value had been fixed by the learned Reference Court and whereas it is after such discussion that the learned Reference Court had valued the lands in question at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. mtr. It would also be pertinent to mention here that the entire judgement does not reflect any special circumstances, which has weighed with the Court in enhancing the compensation. Considering the said scenario, more particularly having regard to the fact that there was no material as considered by the learned Reference Court in the judgement and award dated 9.7.2021, which led to enhanced valuation of the lands in question, and whereas since the category of lands, in both the cases i.e. the lands in the present Reference case and the lands in the Reference case upon which the learned Advocate for the appellants has relied, which was decided by 9.7.2021, are the same i.e. agricultural lands and having regard to the fact that both the lands are situated in the very same village and furthermore, also having regard to the fact that there is no special circumstances, which has weighed with the learned Reference Court while passing the decision which has been relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellants and since it appears that there is no difference as regards the potentiality and the value of both the lands, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the consideration that weighed with the learned Reference Court in passing the judgement and award dated 9.7.2021 are also required to be applied mutatis mutandis the impugned judgement and award under challenge before this Court.
9.2 Insofar as the submission made by learned AGP relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Basant Kumar and Others (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has inter alia observed that the entire lands of a village should not be treated as one unit and compensation should not be determined on the said basis. It would appear that such a submission may not be countenanced, more particularly since from the discussion as above, it would appear that the lands are contiguous to each other, more particularly as noted herein above, except discussing with regard to lands belong to adjacent village, the learned Reference Court has not mentioned any special circumstances, insofar as the present lands are concerned. Again at this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohammad Raofuddin Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, reported in (2009) 14 SCC 367. Paragraphs 10, 11, and 14 of the said decision being relevant for the present purpose Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:54:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3905/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined are being reproduced herein below for benefit:-
"10. One of the principles for determination of the market value of the acquired land would be the price an interested buyer would be willing to pay if it is sold in the open market at the time of issue of Notification under Section 4 of the Act. But finding a direct evidence in this behalf is not an easy exercise and, therefore, the Court has to take recourse to other known methods for arriving at the market value of the land acquired.
11. One of the preferred and well accepted methods adopted for working out the market value of the land in acquisition cases is the comparable sales method. The comparable sales i.e. the lands sought to be compared must be similar in nature and potentiality. Again, in the absence of sale deeds, the judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisition of lands, made in the same village and/or neighbouring villages can be accepted as valid piece of evidence and provide a sound basis to determine the market value of the land after suitable adjustments with regard to positive and negative factors enumerated in Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. Undoubtedly, an element of some guess work is involved in the entire exercise.
12 and 13 ***
14. Thus, comparable sale instances of similar lands in the neighbourhood at or about the date of Notification under Section 4(1) of the Act are the best guide for determination of the market value of the land to arrive at a fair estimate of the amount of compensation payable to a land owner.Nevertheless, while ascertaining compensation, it is the duty of the Court to see that the compensation so determined is just and fair not merely to the individual whose property has been acquired but also to the public which is to pay for it."
9.3 Now, considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohammad Raofuddin (supra), it would appear that in absence of any sale deed judgement and award passed in respect of the acquisition of the lands made in the same village or nearby villages can be accepted as a valid piece of evidence, which provides a sound basis to determine market value of the land. In the instant case, it would appear that the lands, which had been acquired in the same village for albeit for a different purpose had been valued by the Reference Court at the rate of Rs.300/- per sq. mtrs., as against Rs.6/- per sq. mtrs., awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. It would be to this Court absolutely unfair not to rely upon the said decision and grant the same benefit as regards land acquired in the very village, albeit for a different purpose. Again as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the method of relying upon the judgements and award passed in respect of acquisition of lands made in the same village is a valid piece of evidence to determine the market value of the land. Thus, while it is true that in case of Basant Kumar (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has inter alia observed that the entire lands in the village could not be treated as one unit, underline consideration as found in the judgement being that the different lands situated in the same village would not command same market values. The lands abutting main road or national highway fetch higher market value and as the location goes Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:54:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3905/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined backward, market value of interior land would be less even for same kind of land. In the instant case, as noticed, in the decision of the learned Reference Court in LAR No.113/2017 dated 9.7.2021, the learned Reference Court has while determining the value of the land not fixed the market value based upon any special circumstances like the land being nearer or abutting main road or national highway etc. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Basant Kumar (supra) would not advance the cause of the respondent.
11. Having regard to the discussion as herein above, it would clearly appear that the judgement and award in LAR No.17 of 2011 and allied matters was clearly a comparable instance, more particularly since the learned Reference Court in the said decision has inter alia observed that potentiality of lands situated at Village Demai are similar to the land situated at Village Borol. It would also appear that the judgement impugned in the present group of First Appeals had been taken as a basis by the learned Reference Court to pass the award in LAR No.17 of 2011 and allied matters. In this view of the matter, the fact of judgement in LAR No.17 of 2011 and allied matters being a comparable instance would be established. Furthermore, as noted herein above, relying upon the decision in LAR No.113 of 2017 and allied matters, which was with regard to land situated at Village Demai, this Court has enhanced the market value of land in appeals against judgement and award in LAR No.17 of 2011 and allied matters. Having regard to such a fact, in the considered opinion of this Court, the enhancement as awarded to claimants whose lands have been acquired in Village Demai, as co-relatable with LAR No.17 of 2011 and allied matters, is also required to be awarded in case of the present appellant - claimants, whose lands are situated at Village Borol.
12. Having regard to the above discussion and conclusion, the following orders are passed :-
12.1. That the market value of the lands is enhanced from Rs.114/-
per sq. mtr. to Rs.300/- per sq. mtr., i.e. the appellants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.186/- per sq. mtr. (i.e. Rs.300/- per sq. mtr. minus Rs.114/- per sq. mtr.) (in First Appeals No.1099, Present Judgment is modified vide Order dtd. 13/12/2023 in R/FA/1099/20231114, 1109, 1107, 1104, 1103, 1102, 1115, 1110, and 1106 of 2023 - LAR Nos.1819, 1815, 1824, 1817, 1832, 1816, 1828, 1831, 1827, and 1823 of 2010) and the market value of the lands is enhanced from Rs.80/- per sq. mtr. to Rs.300/- per sq. mtr., i.e. the appellants would be entitled to additional compensation of Rs.220/- per sq. mtr. (i.e. Rs.300/- per sq. mtr. minus Rs.80/- per sq. mtr.) (in First Appeals No.1108, 1112, and 1113 of 2023 - LAR Nos.1792, 1789 and 1788 of 2010).
12.2. The appellants are entitled to an additional amount at the rate of 12% per annum on such market value for the period from the date of the publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act to the date of the award of the Collector of the date of taking possession of the lands, whichever is earlier in view of Section 23 (1- A) of the Act.
12.3. It is further ordered that the claimants are also entitled, in addition to the market value of the land, to a sum of 30% on such market value, in consideration of compulsory nature of the acquisition in view of Section 23(2) of the Act along with interest.
12.4. It is further ordered that the claimants are also entitled for the simple interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year from the date on which possession is taken of the lands to the date of payment into Court on the additional amount of compensation and Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:54:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3905/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined 15% per annum after expiry of such first year till payment is made on the additional amount of compensation in view of Section 28 of the Act.
12.5. The appellants are also entitled to 10% rise in the amount of award between the period from 16.10.2004 i.e. from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.113 to 121 of 2017 to 5.8.2008 i.e. the date on which Notification under Section 4 of the Act in the Land Acquisition Reference cases, which were the subject matter of the issue in the impugned decision i.e. for 3 years 9 months and 20 days, which comes to Rs.114/-per sq. mtr., in LAR Nos.17, 19, 20 and 21 of 2011. In short, Rs.300/- per sq. mtr. plus Rs.114/- per sq. mtr., which comes to Rs.414/- per sq. mtr.. Since Rs.114/- per sq. mtr., has already been paid, net amount comes to Rs.300/- per sq. mtr., in LAR Nos.1819, 1815, 1824, 1817, 1832, 1816, 1828, 1831, 1827, and 1823 of 2010 and Rs.334/- per sq. mtr. in LAR Nos.1792, 1789 and 1788 of 2010. Therefore, the appellants would be entitled to an additional amount at the rate of Rs.300/- and Rs.334/- per sq. mtr., respectively, more particularly such amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellants bereft the interest from the date of award in question i.e. 24.1.2017 till the date of filing of the First Appeals.
13. The respondents are directed to deposit the additional enhanced amount within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With these observations and directions, the present appeals stand disposed of as allowed."
5. In view of above, following order is passed:
5.1. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court for village Boral, Taluka; Bayad, District Arvalli - Modasa is applicable to present case as well. Hence, the additional amount of Rs.300/- Per Sq.Mtr. is required to be awarded in addition to the amount awarded by learned Reference Court in present case.
5.2. For the foregoing reasons, present appellants are entitled to get an amount of additional compensation of Rs.300/- Per Sq. Mtr. in addition to the amount of compensation awarded by learned learned trial Court. Thereby, total compensation would come to Rs.414/- per square meter (Rs.414/- - Rs.114/- already awarded amount = Rs.300/-). The respondents are directed to deposit the additional compensation within period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of present order along with the appropriate interest and solatium. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the deficit Courts fees, if not paid, in accordance Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:54:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/3905/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/10/2025 undefined with Rules / Law.
5.3. On deposit of the amount, the same shall be disbursed in favour of all the claimants through R.T.G.S. / N.E.F.T / Account Payee Cheque, after following appropriate procedure.
5.4. This appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and award dated 29.9.2016 passed by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.1833 of 2010 is hereby modified to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Thu Oct 09 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 09 22:54:51 IST 2025