Gujarat High Court
Devraj Amrutlal vs State Of Gujarat on 1 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/22/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 22 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
===========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
===========================================================
DEVRAJ AMRUTLAL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
===========================================================
Appearance:
MR N R DESAI(6504) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS DEVANSHI PATEL, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
===========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. N.R. Desai for the appellant and learned AGP Ms. Devanshi Patel for respondent No.1. Perused the record.
2. At the outset, learned advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the common oral order dated 30.7.2018 passed by the the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.296 of 2018 and allied matters. It is further submitted that since the issue is squarely covered, this Court may pass similar order in this matter too.
3. For the sake of convenience, order dated 30.7.2018 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.296 of 2018 and allied matters is reproduced hereunder:
"1. These appeals are filed by the original claimants. They have challenged the judgment and awards dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in the Land Reference Case No.284 of 2005 and allied matters. The grievance is limited. Their contention is that the Reference Court, in the process of passing awards, has committed arithmetical and computational errors, which has Page 1 of 3 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:16:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/22/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined drastically reduced the compensation payable to the claimants. They therefore seek rectification of such errors and the interference of this Court to this limited extent.
2. Brief facts are as under:-
2.1 Different parcels of lands of the claimants came to be acquired by the Government, for which notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 05.07.1996. The Land Acquisition Officer passed his award on 25.09.1998, in which he granted compensation at the rate of Rs.250/- per Are for non-irrigated lands and at the rate of Rs.375/- per Are for irrigated lands. The claimants sought reference against the award. Before the Reference Court, the claimants relied on yield method of assessment and produced evidence in this respect. From the evidence on record, the Reference Court came to the conclusion that the annual yield of the crops per 'vigha' was Rs.1,26,563/-. The Reference Court set apart 50% thereof for the cost of production such as fertilizer, pesticides, labour charges, etc. and held that the annual income from such land was Rs.63,281/- per 'vigha'. The Reference Court adopted multiplier of 10 for the purpose of assessing market value of the land. Though not recorded in the judgment, this would mean that according to the Reference Court, the value of the land was assessed at Rs.6,32,815/- per 'vigha'. Since the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded compensation on the basis of per Are computation, the Reference Court then converted such market value of the land on the basis of Ares. According to the learned Judge, this would come to Rs.3,955/- per Are. He therefore awarded such sum for irrigated lands and after deducting Rs.375/- already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, he awarded additional compensation of Rs.3580/- per Are.
For nonirrigated lands, he reduced the compensation by 25% and granted additional compensation of Rs.2716/- per Are.
3. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties, we record that the Reference Court has committed two serious calculation errors. First is of assessing the net yield of the land at Rs.63,281/- per 'vigha'. This is so because the claimants had produced evidence of the yield of the land on the basis of per hectare measurement and not per 'vigha'. Even according to the claimants, the total yield before expenditure was Rs.1,26,563/- per hectare. If the Reference Court believed that 50% thereof should be set apart for production of cost and multiplier of 10 should be adopted for computing the market value of the land. This would bring the value of the land at Rs.6,32,815/- per hectare and not per 'vigha' as held by the Reference Court.
4. The second computational error committed by the Reference Court was in converting this figure of Rs.6,32,815/- (erroneously taken to be the market value of one 'vigha' of land) into the value of the land per Are.
5. In plain terms, the result of the conclusion of the Reference Court that the market value of the land was Rs.6,32,815/- per hectare would mean that the value of the land per Are would be Rs.6,328.15. Though these are purely computational and arithmetical errors, we are not prepared to correct them in these appeals since the very foundational conclusion of the Reference Court that as per yield method, the market value of the land should be assessed at Rs.6,32,815/- per hectare, is open to questioning and we do not propose to convert this finding into our conclusion.
6. Under the circumstances, impugned judgment and awards are set aside. The Reference Court shall pass fresh awards by carrying out correction in the computation of compensation payable to the land owners in terms of the observations made in this judgment. This may be done expeditiously. Once such fresh awards are passed, it would be open for the aggrieved party, be the Government or the claimants, to challenge the same. All appeals are disposed of accordingly."
Page 2 of 3 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:16:16 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/22/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/09/2025 undefined
4. Learned AGP could not contradict aforesaid factual position. However, learned AGP contended that the learned Reference Court be given some direction to hear and dispose off the reference cases within a stipulated period of time, as the notification under Sections 4 and 6 were published on 30.5.1996 and 8.5.1997 respectively.
5. Having considered the submissions canvassed by the learned advocates for the parties and on perusal of record, it appears that the other claimants of the group of LAR preferred First Appeal No.296 of 2018 and allied matters wherein coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 30.7.2018 has discussed the facts as reproduced hereinabove and has remanded the matters to the learned Reference Court for fresh adjudication.
6. In view of above, it would be appropriate to remand the reference cases to the learned Reference Court shall pass fresh awards in terms of the observations made in the order dated 30.7.2018 passed in First Appeal No.296 of 2018 and allied matters. Order accordingly. It may be noted herein that since the reference proceedings are very old proceedings, the learned Reference Court shall decide the reference proceedings within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is observed that while condoning delay, the claimant has been directed not to claim interest for the delayed period. While calculating the compensation, the claimant shall not be entitled to interest for delayed period on the revised compensation, if any. The parties are directed to cooperate with the reference Court for early disposal of the reference cases.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, present appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J) vk Page 3 of 3 Uploaded by VATSAL S. KOTECHA(HC00352) on Wed Sep 03 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 03 23:16:16 IST 2025