Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Shantaben Fulabhai on 10 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/885/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 885 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 882 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
-
==========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
SHANTABEN FULABHAI & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR KL DAVE(1225) for the Defendant(s) No.
1,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Defendant(s) No. 4
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 10/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and award dated 11.11.2010 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh, (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 1748 of 1999 [Consolidate Cases No. 1743 of 1999 to 1745 of 1999 and 1748 of 1999, whereby the References were partly allowed and the present appellants were Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:14:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/885/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined held liable to pay additional amount of compensation to the original claimants along with interest and costs and other statutory benefits.
2. The facts in brief are that the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act [hereinafter be referred to as "the Act"] made a proposal for permanent acquisition of the lands belonging to the respondents-original claimants situated at Village: Sankhadvadar, Taluka: Junagadh. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 17.06.1993 and notification under Section 6 dated 06.01.1994. After following due procedure, the lands came to be acquired for the purpose of "Ozat-2" Irrigation Scheme. Award came to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixing the amount of compensation.
2.1 However, being dissatisfied with the award, the original claimants raised dispute, by way of references. The Reference Court partly allowed the references by impugned judgment and award awarding additional amount of Rs.45/- (Rs.50 - 5) per square for Irrigated Land and Rs.36/- (Rs.40 - 4) per square meter for Non- Irrigated Land.
3. Being aggrieved, by the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the appellants have preferred these appeals.
4. Heard Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr.Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the respondents - claimants at length. Perused the material placed on record.
Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:14:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/885/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined
5. Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants has submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and award and in exercising the jurisdiction which is not vested with it. She has submitted that the Reference Court has erred in awarding additional compensation on higher side over and above the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. She has submitted that the Reference Court ought not to have considered the fact that the claimants have not submitted their objection as required under Section 9(3)(4) of the Act against the market price fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer of acquired land while issuing notification under Section 4 of the Act. She has submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded just and adequate compensation and there is no reason for enhancing the same. She has also submitted that the similar References were decided by the Reference Court for the same acquisition and for the same notification in another group of Reference Cases No.1482 of 1999 to 1489 of 1999 as well as 1746 and 1747 of 1999, the decision of which came to be challenged before the Division Bench of this Court by filing First Appeal No.5853 of 2008 and allied appeals and vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2011 the Division Bench has allowed the appeals and quashed and set aside the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court. She has submitted that in view of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid first appeals, the present appeals deserve to be allowed to the extent for which Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the respondents - claimants has submitted that he is unable to make any submissions as the Division Bench of this Court has decided the group of the same Land Reference Cases. He has submitted that in view of the judgment and Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:14:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/885/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined order passed by the Division Bench, the Court may pass appropriate order.
6. I have considered the averments made in the memo of appeals, submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. I have perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid first appeals.
7. Now, it is an undisputed fact that the lands situated at Village:
Sankhadvadar, Taluka: Junagadh were acquired for the public purpose and the notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 17.06.1993 and notification under Section 6 dated 06.01.1994 and award came to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer fixing the amount of compensation. It appears that the Division Bench of this Court has, after considering the relevant materials, partly allowed the appeals and thereby considered the market price of the lands and ordered to award compensation to the tune of Rs.40/- per square meters for irrigated lands and Rs.32/- per square meters for non-irrigated lands plus all statutory benefits of increase in the market value under Section 23(1-A), solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Act and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the present appeals deserve to be allowed in part to that extent.
8. In view of the above, it is observed that the original claimants shall be entitled for the compensation at Rs.40/- per square meters for irrigated lands and Rs.32/- per square meters for non-irrigated lands Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:14:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/885/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/10/2025 undefined plus statutory benefits of increase in the market value under Section 23(1-A), solatium under Section 23(2) and interest under Section 28 of the Act as ordered by the Reference Court.
9. Hence, the appeals are allowed in part to the aforesaid extent. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is modified to the extent. If the appellants have deposited the additional amount of compensation as awarded by the Reference Court, then the appellants shall provide calculation as per the award. After verifying the statement / calculation, the Reference Court is requested to refund the additional amount deposited by the appellants within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order along with the statutory benefits and remaining amount shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants after following due procedure and verifying their bank details through RTGS / NEFT. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending civil applications, if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 13 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Oct 14 01:14:37 IST 2025