Gujarat High Court
Dipakbhai Gordhanbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 13 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1386/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1386 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1387 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1388 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1389 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1390 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1498 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1500 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1743 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DIPAKBHAI GORDHANBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BHAVESH DESAI AND MR. RAHUL DAVE, AGPs for the Defendant(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 13/10/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeals have been filed by the respective claimants challenging the Judgment and Award dated 20.4.2018 & 25.4.2018 passed by Learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Dhoraji in group of LAR Nos.619 of 2009 to 628 of 2009.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Tejas Satta for the appellants and and learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr.Rahul Dave and Mr.Bhavesh Desai for respondent no.1 - State in all the appeals. Though served, none appeared for respondent No.2.
Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 01:53:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1386/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined 3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
The land of the claimants situated in village Paneli, Taluka Upleta, District Rajkot was acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of Paneli Small Irrigation Scheme raising and repairing work. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 09.10.2002 and under Section 6 notification was published on 03.05.2003. The Land Acquisition Officer, under Section 11(1) of the Act has awarded Rs.5.87 paisa, as compensation for Jirayat Land. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer came to be challenged by the land owners under Section 18 of the Act, by way of reference proceedings. The learned Reference Court allowed reference cases by granting additional compensation at Rs.54.13 per sq. m. (over and above the compensation awarded by the land Acquisition Officer) for Jirayat land.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award the original claimants have filed respective First Appeals.
5. Learned advocate for the appellants contended that the award of Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation was too meager, and the claimants claimed compensation at Rs.60/- per sq.m. for the Jirayat land. The learned Reference Court after considering Exh.14, the award was passed by learned Land Acquisition Officer in which the sale instance mention for the same village. Though learned Reference Court observeed that claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs.148.14/- Paisa per sq.m for the Jirayat land but the claim of the claimants was Rs.60/- per sq.m. for Jirayat. The appellants were awarded additional compensation at Rs.54.13 Paisa (over and above compensation awarded by Land Acquisition Officer). A reliance has been placed upon the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Hariyana reported in (2016) 4 SCC 544 and the decision in the case of Narendra and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426. By relying upon the aforesaid two decisions, learned advocate for the appellants contended that, while granting compensation, the Reference Court has to consider a compensation which is maximum, and the claimants who have lost their land in the process of acquisition, may be granted Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 01:53:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1386/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined reasonable, fair and just compensation. It is therefore, contended that the claimants be granted compensation at Rs.148.14 Paisa per sq.m. for Jirayat land.
5. Per contra learned advocate for respondents contended that learned Reference Court has awarded just and reasonable compensation. It is further contended that the claimants who claimed compensation at Rs.60/- per sq.m. for the non-irrigated land were granted by the learned Reference Court and therefore, claim for compensation at Rs.148.14/- per sq. meter for the Jirayat land, is uncalled for, and the same request may be rejected.
6. Having considered the submissions and the papers placed on record and more particularly the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Anr.(Supra) and Narendra and Others(Supra) the issue in the present appeal is in a very narrow compass.
7. In the case of Ashok Kumar(Supra) in paragraph no.7 the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"The pre-amended provision puts a cap on the maximum: the compensation by court should not be beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, puts a cap on the minimum: compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner."
While determining the question of compensation the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a gap on maximum compensation was put in preamendment provision but as per the amendment in the year 1984, a gap on minimum compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The gap on maximum Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 01:53:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1386/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined compensation having been expressly omitted, and the gap is put only minimum compensation, a duty is caste upon the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration a true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim of the land owners.
9. In the case of Narendra (Supra) in paragraph no.5 and 8 the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the issue on the award of just and fair compensation has observed as under:-
"5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the issue has already been settled by this Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana wherein it is held that it is the duty of the court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of claim made by the landowner and there is no cap on the maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by the court and the courts are not restricted to awarding only that amount that has been claimed by the landowners/applicants in their application before it. The relevant paragraphs of this judgment are quoted as under: (SCC pp. 546-48, paras 6-7 & 10-11) "6. Prior to Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the amount of compensation that could be awarded by the Court was limited to the amount claimed by the applicant. Section 25 read as under:
25. Rules as to amount of compensation.- (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.
(2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.
(3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector.
The amended Section 25 reads as under:
Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 01:53:36 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1386/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined
25. Amount of compensation awarded by court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector. The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.' The amendment has come into effect on 24-9-1984.
7. The pre-amended provision puts a cap on the maximum; the compensation by court should not be beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, puts a cap on the minimum:
compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner.
9. In Bhag Singh v. UT of Chandigarh, this Court held that there may be situations where the amount higher than the amount claimed may be awarded to the claimant. The Court observed: (SCC p. 741, para 3) '3.... It must be remembered that this was not a dispute between two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate to confine the claimant to the claim made by him and not to award him any higher amount than that claimed though even in such a case there may be situations where an amount higher than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account. Here was a claim made by the appellants against the State Government for compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law, the State was bound to pay to the appellants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and if according to the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, the market value of the land acquired was higher than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional District Judge, there is no reason why the appellants should have been denied the benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To deny this benefit to the appellants would tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land of the appellants on payment of less than the true market value. There may be cases where, as for instance, under agrarian reform legislation, the holder of land may, legitimately, as a matter of social justice with a view to eliminating concentration of land in the hands of a few and bringing about its equitable distribution, be deprived of land which is not being personally cultivated by him or which is in excess of the ceiling area with payment of little compensation or no compensation at all, but where land is acquired Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 01:53:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1386/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value when the law, in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market value.'
10. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal, this Court held that under the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the Court can grant a higher compensation than that claimed by the applicant in his pleadings....
11. Further, in Bhimasha v. LAO, a three-Judge Bench reiterated the principle in Bhag Singh and rejected the contention that a higher compensation than that claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot be awarded by the Court." (emphasis supplied)
8. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those landowners who are agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined. which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court. It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the legislature. Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind. the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sell off their land. They were compelled to give the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and appeal to the High Court, etc. In order to ensure that the landowners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for "fair compensation". Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all landowners whose land was taken away by the same notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 01:53:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1386/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied to them."
10. In paragraph no.5 the Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken into consideration the decision of Ashok Kumar(Supra). It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 8 in the case of Narendra (supra) that strict rule of pleadings are not to be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration.
11. The purpose behind the enactment of the Land Acquisition Act is to see that, the land owners who have lost the lands and the livelihood because of acquisitions of their lands must receive just and reasonable compensation. The compensation has to determined on the market value of the land. For determining the marketing value of the land, out of various factors, one of the factors is the consideration of the sale deed which is either adjacent/nearby the land which is acquired by the acquiring body. In the present case the learned Reference Court considered the sale deed of the same village. Though learned Reference Court found appellants are entitled to compensation as to the sale deed of the same village but held that since claimants have claimed less compensation, learned Reference Court awarded compensation which was claimed by appellants.
12. In my view the approach of learned Reference Court is against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar(Supra) and Narendra (supra). Considering the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, and more particularly undisputedly the learned Reference Court has observed that, land owners are entitled to more compensation than claimed, in my opinion the learned Reference Court has committed an error by granting additional compensation of Rs.54.13 Paisa per sq.m. (over and above the compensation awarded by land Acquisition Officer) for land land in question. I am of the opinion that the appellants are entitled for the maximum compensation and the purpose of the enactment of the Act, would be satisfied, if the claimants are granted additional compensation of Rs.148.14 Paisa per sq.m. for the Jirayat land (non-irrigated land) with statutory benefits on the differential Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 01:53:36 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1386/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/10/2025 undefined amount.
13. Resultantly, the First Appeal is allowed. The respondents shall deposit additional compensation at Rs.88.14 Paisa per sq.m. (Rs.148.14 minus 60, awarded by the learned Reference Court and land Acquisition Officer) for Jirayat land, before the learned Reference Court, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the receipt of this order and on depositing the additional compensation the learned Reference Court shall disburse the amount in favour of the claimants after following due procedure. While making the payment, the Tribunal shall deduct the deficit Courts fees, if not paid, in accordance with Rules / Law. 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.
14. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to concerned Court / Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Tue Oct 14 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 15 01:53:36 IST 2025