Gujarat High Court
Group General Manager vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2320/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2320 of 2009
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2321 of 2009
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
GROUP GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MOSON LE EXPARTS(11071) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AKSHAT KHARE(5912) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Defendant(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 09/09/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. 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 19.04.2008 passed by the learned 9 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana (hereinafter be referred to as "the Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 4036 of 2003 and 4037 of 2003 respectively (Main LAR No.4036/2003), whereby, the learned Judge partly allowed the References filed by the Page 1 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:04:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2320/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined respective respondents - original claimants and awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. alongwith other statutory benefits, over and above the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that, for the public purpose of ONGC Project JNDJ, 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 18.09.1995 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 22.04.1996. That, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.4/- per sq. mtr. by passing an award dated 13.01.1998 in LAQ Case No.32 of 1994.
3. Being aggrieved, the respondents - original claimants, preferred the aforesaid LAR Cases under Section 18 of the Act for additional compensation of Rs.150/- and Rs.50/- per sq. mtr. respectively. However, the judgment and award dated 19.04.2008 came to be passed by the learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana. This has aggrieved the appellants, have preferred the present appeals raising various grounds.
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.
Page 2 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:04:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2320/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined
5. Learned counsel Mr. Khare has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is contrary to law and facts and evidence on record. He has submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon the judgment of village Kasalpur, adjoining village having common boundary with the present village Makhnaj 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.25/- per sq. mtr. in addition to the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He has submitted that as per Exh.-23, which is a sale-deed dated 16.07.1993 of same village Makhnaj, registered at Rs.4/- per sq. mtr., however, the Reference Court has not considered the same only because, the purchaser and seller was not by the appellant. He has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 51A of the Act, certified copy of registered sale-deeds can be relied by the Court and executors are not required to be examined in the Court. He has submitted that the Reference Court has referred and relied upon the decision of this Court rendered in case of Defence Estate Officer vs. Lilaben w/o Govindbhai Prabhudas, [1998] 2 GLH 279, for holding that since the vendors of sale-deed was not examined, therefore, subject sale-deed cannot be relied for fixing market rate of land, however, the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer vs. Narasaiah, AIR 2001 SC 1117, has held that after insertion of Section 51A, the Courts are required to accept a certified copy of the document as a valid evidence. He has further submitted that the Reference Court ought to have relied upon the sale-deeds of Page 3 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:04:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2320/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined same village Makhnaj produced by the appellant for considering the market value of the lands.
5.1 Learned counsel Mr. Khare 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 whereas, in the instant case, notification under Section 4 was issued on 18.09.1995 and thus, if we consider the difference of 4 years then, 40% is required to be reduced, which comes to Rs.26.40ps. per sq. mtr. and deducting Rs.4/- as awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, it comes to Rs.22.40ps. and thus, the Reference Court has committed a serious error while awarding Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. He has also referred and relied upon the decision of this Court passed in First Appeal No.2556 of 2002, wherein, this Court had 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 Page 4 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:04:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2320/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined awarded by the Reference Court. He has further submitted that the Reference Court has observed that "looking to the evidence produced on record in the form of sale deed produced by the opponent No.2, it is seen that, land bearing Block No. 1395 of village Makhnaj Exh.-23 is registered at a price of Rs.4.01ps. per sq. mtr. of land on 16.07.1993", for which, the Reference Court had referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in case of Land Acquisition Officer and Mandal Revenue Officer vs. Narasaiah, AIR 2001 SC 1117 in relation to Section 51A of the Act and observed and held as under :
"10. Before the introduction of Section 51A in the L.A. Act the courts have, invariably, taken the view that unless at least one person, having direct knowledge about the transaction mentioned in the sale-deed, is examined the mere marking of the copy of the document was insufficient for the court to consider the details mentioned in the document as evidence. This Court has also approved the said position as legally correct [vide The Collector Raigarh vs. Dr. Harisingh Thakur - [1979] 2 SCR 183].
11. If the only purpose served by Section 51A is to enable the Court to admit the copy of the document in evidence there was no need for a legislative exercise because even otherwise the certified copy of the document could have been admitted in evidence. Section 64 of the Evidence Act says that "documents must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases hereinafter mentioned." Section 65 mentions the cases in which secondary evidence can be given of the existence, condition or contents of a document. One of the cases included in the list is detailed in clause (f) of the Section which reads thus:
"When the original is a document of which a certified copy is permitted by this Act, or by any other law in force in India, to be given in evidence."
12. Section 57 of the Registration Act 1908 enables anyone to apply for copy of the entries in Book No.1 (the said Book is meant for keeping the register of the documents as well as non-testamentary documents relating to immovable property). When any person applies for a copy of it the same shall be given to him. Sub-section (5) of Section 57 of that Act says that "all copies given under this Section shall be signed and sealed by the registering officer and shall be admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original document."
13. If the position regarding admissibility of the contents of a document which is a certified copy falling within the purview of section 57(5) of the Registration Act was as adumbrated above, even before the introduction of section 51A in the L.A.Act, could there be any legislative object in Page 5 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:04:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2320/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined incorporating the said new provision through Act 68 of 1984? It must be remembered that the state has the burden to prove the market value of the lands acquired by it for which the state may have to depend upon the prices of lands similarly situated which were transacted or sold in the recent past, particularly those lands situated in the neighbouring areas. The practice had shown that for the state officials it was a burden to trace out the persons connected with such transactions mentioned in the sale-deeds and then to examine them in court for the purpose of proving such transactions. It was in the wake of the aforesaid practical difficulties that the new Section 51A was introduced in the L.A. Act. When the Section says that certified copy of a registered document "may be accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded in such document" it enables the court to treat what is recorded in the document, in respect of the transactions referred to therein, as evidence.
16. In the case of Section 51A of the LA Act also the position cannot be different, as it is open to the court to act on the documents regarding the transaction recorded in such documents. However, this will not prevent any party who supports or opposes the said document or the transaction recorded therein to adduce other evidence to substantiate their stand regarding such transactions. But it is not possible to hold that even after the introduction of section 51A the position would remain the same as before."
5.2 Learned counsel Mr. Khare 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. Ag 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 Page 6 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:04:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2320/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 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 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 Reference Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and award and while considering the documentary evidence i.e. sale instances as observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that even without examining the concerned witnesses of the sale instances, the certified copy of the sale-deed can be accepted and thus, there is no quarrel with regard to the admission of those documents however, on perusal of those documents and also considering the decision of this Court, I am of the opinion that if we consider the price at Rs.44/- per sq. mtr. as awarded by this Court, then considering 4 years' gap, 40% and is required to be deducted, which comes to Rs.26.40ps. (Rs.44/- - 40%). In the case on hand, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.25/- per sq. mtr., which is just and adequate and there is no any infirmity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court deserves to be Page 7 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:04:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2320/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined confirmed and the present appeals are required to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the present appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 19.04.2008 passed by the learned 9th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference Nos. 4036 of 2003 and 4037 of 2003 respectively, is hereby confirmed. The amount deposited by the appellant shall be disbursed in favour of each claimant, through RTGS / NEFT and the bank account details shall be furnished by the counsel for the claimants to the Registry of the Reference Court, Mehsana. Other observations of the Reference Court for statutory benefits provided under the Act shall remain intact. Decree be drawn accordingly. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Reference Court forthwith.
8.1 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.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 8 of 8 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Fri Sep 19 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Sep 20 02:04:05 IST 2025