Gujarat High Court
O.N.G.C vs Patel Narsinhbhai Keshavlal on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/737/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 737 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 738 of 2007
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 739 of 2007
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
==========================================================
O.N.G.C.
Versus
PATEL NARSINHBHAI KESHAVLAL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MOSON LE EXPARTS(11071) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AKSHAT KHARE(5912) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 10/10/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In view of the fact that identical and similar issues are involved in the present appeals, all of them are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Present First Appeals are filed by the appellant - Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the common judgment and award dated 14.06.2006 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mehsana (hereinafter be referred to Page 1 of 11 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 22:13:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/737/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined as "the Reference Court") in Land Reference Case Nos. 57 of 2004 to 59 of 2004, whereby, the learned Judge partly allowed the References filed by the respective respondents - original claimants and awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.28/- per sq. mtr. alongwith other statutory benefits, over and above the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that, for the public purpose, the State Government acquired the lands of the respondents - original claimants situated at Village: Makhnaj, Taluka: and District:
Mehsana. That, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") was issued on 15.02.1993 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 16.08.1993. That, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.1.55 ps. per sq. mtr.
by passing an award dated 6.10.1994.
3.1 Being aggrieved, the respondents - original claimants, preferred the aforesaid LAR Cases under Section 18 of the Act for additional compensation before the Reference Court.
3.2 The said references were opposed by the respondents by filing written statement and objection in each land references. After considering the arguments advanced by both the sides and after evaluating the evidence placed on record, the Reference Court framed issues at Exh.5, in paragraph No.5, which read as under:-
Page 2 of 11 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 22:13:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/737/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
1. Whether the applicant proves that the compensation awarded is inadequate?
2. What additional compensation, if any, he is entitled to?
3. What award and decree?
3.3 After framing the issues as aforesaid, the Reference Court has answered the same in paragraph No.6 and finally after considering all the relevant aspects and material produced on record the Reference Court has passed judgment and award dated 19.06.2008 and awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.28/-
per sq. mtr. alongwith other statutory benefits, over and above the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
4. Heard Mr. Akshat Khare, learned counsel appearing for the appellant - ONGC, Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent - State and Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - original claimants.
5. Mr. Khare, learned counsel has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is contrary to law and facts and evidence on record.
5.1 Mr. Khare, learned counsel has submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon the judgment of village Santhal, adjoining village having common boundary with Page 3 of 11 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 22:13:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/737/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the present village and thus, the Reference Court has committed a serious error while considering the facts of the case as there is no evidence to suggest that it is comparable. He has submitted that the Reference Court has not appreciated the evidence produced by the appellant in its true and proper spirit while passing the impugned judgment and award awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.28/- per sq. mtr. in addition to the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He has submitted that the order relied upon by the Reference Court of adjoining village Santhal has stayed by this Court in First Appeal No. 543 to 555 of 2006 and the same came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 30.6.2011. He has submitted that despite the order being stayed, Reference Court had relied the sale deed of Santhal village and fixed the market rate at Rs.28/- per square meter by giving 10% annual enhancement from 30.4.1983 to 15.2.1993. He has submitted that present village Makhnaj have common boundary with village Kasalpur and not with village Santhal.
5.2 Mr. Khare, learned counsel has referred and relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in case of General Manager [ONGC] vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. in First Appeal Nos. 2798 of 2008 and 2799 of 2008, decided on 16.07.2025, wherein, this Court has awarded Rs.44/- per sq. mtr., wherein, notification under Section 4 was issued on 25.10.1999. He has also referred and relied upon the decision of this Court passed in First Appeal No.2556 of 2002, wherein, this Court had Page 4 of 11 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 22:13:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/737/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined remanded the matter back to the Reference Court against the award passed in LAR No.23 of 1996 filed by the claimant Thakore Bhikhuji Agraji of the present village Makhnaj and after considering the same, the Reference Court had awarded the amount of Rs.12.10ps. per sq. mtr. in addition to the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He has also referred and relied upon the decision of this Court in case of General Manager vs. Chaudhary Mahotbhai Hirabhai in First Appeal No.1399 of 2018 and other allied matters, which was subsequently challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court, whereby, the Hon'ble Apex Court has confirmed the order passed by this Court and therefore, learned counsel Mr. Khare has submitted that the claimants are not entitled to the amount as awarded by the Reference Court.
5.3 Mr. Khare, learned counsel has submitted that, as per the revenue map, Village Makhnaj shares a common boundary with Village Kasalpura and not with Village Santhal. It was contended that the Learned Reference Court ought to have relied on sale deeds from the same village produced by ONGC. In particular, Sale Deed No. 1556 of 1990 for land in Block No. 608 indicated a rate of ₹0.89 per Sq.mtr. (market value ₹1.06 per Sq.mtr. as on 15/02/1993), and Sale Deed No. 2263 of 1994 for land in Block No. 1224 indicated a rate of ₹2.19 per Sq.mtr. (market value ₹1.97 per Sq.mtr. as on 15/02/1993).
5.4 Mr. Khare, learned counsel has submitted that the Page 5 of 11 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 22:13:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/737/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined original claimant, Patel Kevalbhai Mulchanddas, during cross-examination, admitted that the market rate of land was around ₹25,000 to ₹30,000 per bigha (approximately ₹1.1 per Sq.mtr.). It was pointed out that in earlier references and similar cases in Village Makhnaj, including LAR Nos. 57/2004 to 59/2004, 958-960/1999, 1130/2000, and LAR No. 23/1993, the market rate fixed by the Learned Reference Court ranged between ₹11 and ₹28 per Sq.mtr., which were accepted by the claimants.
5.5 Mr. Khare, learned counsel has therefore, urged that in view of above position, the present appeals be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court be quashed and set aside and the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer be confirmed.
6. As against that, learned counsel Mr. A.V. Prajapati, appearing for the respondents - original claimants, has submitted that if we consider the submissions of the appellant and the order passed by this Court in case of village Kasalpura, wherein, this Court has awarded Rs.44/- per sq. mtr. and considering the said amount, 40% is required to be deducted in view of gap of four years in issuance of notification under Section 4, which comes to Rs.26.40ps., meaning thereby that the amount awarded by the Reference Court is required to be confirmed and no interference is required to be called for in the present appeals. He has further submitted that if, from the said Rs.26.40ps, the amount of Rs.4/- is deducted, as awarded Page 6 of 11 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 22:13:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/737/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, then it comes to Rs.22.40, which is completely erroneous, illegal and unjust and therefore, learned counsel Mr. Prajapati has urged that the present appeals be dismissed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court be confirmed.
7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the oral as well as documentary evidence led by both the sides before the Reference Court. In my considered opinion, the
8. Having re-examined the entire record, this Court finds that the Reference Court, while fixing the market value of the acquired land at Rs.28/- per sq. mtr., has not properly appreciated the evidence on record nor has it adopted correct legal principles applicable for determination of fair market value under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court has relied solely upon one sale deed of village Santhal dated 30.04.1986 and thereafter applied a straight-line increase of 10% per annum up to the date of notification under Section 4. However, it failed to consider whether such sale instance was fully comparable in respect of location, nature, development, and potential of the acquired land. More importantly, the Reference Court did not make any deduction on account of development, largeness of the acquired land, or other relevant market factors as mandated by settled principles of law, thereby leading to Page 7 of 11 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 22:13:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/737/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined an inflated valuation.
9. The sale deed relied upon by the Reference Court pertains to a small plot of land in a neighbouring village and nothing has been brought on record to show that the said land possessed similar advantages or identical situational benefits as the land acquired in the present case. It is well settled that while comparable sale instances can be taken as a basis, appropriate deductions must be made for development, availability of amenities, and locational advantages, and the Court must examine whether such instance truly reflects the prevailing market value. The Reference Court has proceeded on the assumption that the said sale instance was genuine and sufficient, without examining whether other contemporaneous transactions were available, or whether the acquiring authority's evidence indicating lower market value deserved greater weight. Further, the application of 10% yearly increase by the Reference Court has been done in a mechanical manner, without recording any finding as to whether increase in land prices during the relevant period was steady, consistent, or justified by market trends.
10. On the contrary, the evidence led by the acquiring body, including the transactions considered by the Land Acquisition Officer, indicates that the average market value of similar lands in the vicinity during the relevant period was considerably lower than Rs.28/- per sq. mtr. The lands acquired are largely agricultural in nature and Page 8 of 11 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 22:13:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/737/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined the claimants have not produced any convincing material to establish that the lands had already attained urban potential or commercial value warranting such a high rate. Even the reliance on earlier awards by the Reference Court was misplaced, as the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court and High Courts clarifies that previous awards can be used only as guiding factors, and each acquisition must be assessed on its own facts. The Reference Court erred in treating the earlier award as binding without examining whether the factual circumstances and market conditions were truly comparable.
11. Considering the totality of the evidence, the nature, situation and potential of the acquired land, the distance from the developed areas, availability of infrastructural facilities, and the reasonable escalation in land prices, this Court is of the view that the market value of Rs.28/- per sq. mtr. fixed by the Reference Court is excessive and not supported by reliable and cogent material. At the same time, the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer appears to be on the lower side, and therefore a balanced and just approach is required.
12. It appears that, vide order dated 09.09.2025 in First Appeal No. 2320 of 2006 with First Appeal No. 2321 of 2006, this Court had fixed the market rate of the lands acquired in Village Makhnaj at Rs.29/- per square meter as on the date of Section 4 Notification dated 18.09.1995. Thus, by reducing Rs.7.51/- towards the difference of 2 Page 9 of 11 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 22:13:14 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/737/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined years, 7 months and 3 days, the market rate in the present appeal as on Section 4 Notification dated 15.02.1993 would come to Rs.21.49/- per square meter. After deducting Rs.1.55/- per square meter already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the additional compensation would come to Rs.19.94/-, which is rounded off to Rs.20/- per square
13. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Reference Court requires to be modified. The market value of the acquired land is hereby re-determined at Rs.20/- (Rupees Twenty only) per sq. mtr.
14. In the result, the present appeals are partly allowed. The impugned common judgment and award dated 14.06.2006 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge, Mehsana in Land Reference Case Nos. 57 of 2004 to 59 of 2004, is hereby modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to Rs.20/- per square meter instead of Rs.28/- per square meter.
15. If the amount of compensation is not deposited by the appellant before the Reference Court, the same shall be deposited at the rate of Rs. 20/- per square meter before the Reference Court, and after such deposit, it shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants after verifying their bank details and following due procedure through RTGS/NEFT. The claimants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A), 23(2), and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act on the basis of the re-
Page 10 of 11 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 22:13:14 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/737/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined determined market value, while other observations of the Reference Court regarding statutory benefits under the Act shall remain intact. Decree be drawn accordingly, and the record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Reference Court forthwith.
16. The amount deposited by the appellant under the provisions of Section 28 of the Act is permitted to be withdrawn by the respondents - original claimants. It is clarified that it is open for the respondents -original claimants that if, the Hon'ble Apex Court considers the interest from the date of acquisition then, the respondents are entitled for the difference amount and they may approach the Reference Court concerned and the Reference Court is directed to pass appropriate orders.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) SURESH SOLANKI Page 11 of 11 Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Thu Oct 16 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Oct 16 22:13:14 IST 2025