Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Moghiben Chaturbhai on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/290/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 290 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
MOGHIBEN CHATURBHAI & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2,3
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Defendant(s) No. 2,7
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 2.4,3
MR KM SHETH(838) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2.2,2.3,4,5,7.1,7.2,7.3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 6
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 12/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the common judgment and award dated 28.01.2013 passed by the learned Reference Court being learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in LAR Nos.388 to 395 of 2010 whereby, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.211.75ps. per square meter for the acquired land as an additional compensation, over and above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer together with solatium and interest.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 23:38:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/290/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined
2. The facts of the present case are that the appellants have acquired the land situated at Village: Panchkada, Taluka: Jambusar, District: Bharuch for public purpose of construction of the Panchkada Minor Division 1 Canal under Narmada Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 08.06.2006 and Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 19.10.2006. The award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 22.04.2009 in LAQ Case No. 06/2006 and awarded the compensation at Rs.1.50/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the aforesaid Land Reference Cases before the Reference Court whereby, the Reference Court awarded additional compensation at Rs.211.75ps. per square meter vide its judgment and award dated 28.01.2013.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard Ms. Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and Mr. K.M. Sheth, learned counsel for the respondents - claimants.
5. It appears that during the pendency of this appeal, another group of appeals filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat, which covers the issue involved in the present appeal, were withdrawn in the Lok Adalat. Since the claim in the said appeals was settled in the Lok Adalat and the amount involved in the present appeal is exceeded the limit, the State Government cannot be permitted to contest the appeal/s and challenge the impugned judgment and award in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 23:38:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/290/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined case of Shivappa Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer and others reported in 2023 LiveLaws SC 312. Relevant observations at paragraphs 9 to 11 are reproduced herein below for benefits:-
"9. In the said case also, the Reference Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250/- per acre. The High Court, vide order dated 8.3.2016 has allowed the said appeal(s) to be withdrawn and the same had been placed on record before this Court in I. A. No.59170 of 2016. Though a period of more than six years had lapsed, the said position is not contested by the respondents.
10. The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose.
11. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination."
6. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, since the appellant does not dispute the fact that the appellant either, after having preferred appeals, some appeals had withdrawn as the claim as per the Circular was petty claim and thereafter, merely on account of the fact that the additional amount awarded to the present claimants exceeds the cut-off for a petty claim, the State would not be permitted to question the same, more particularly since the State has accepted the very same award of the learned Reference Court with regard to other claimants. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such an attitude would smack of patent discrimination and cannot be countenanced.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. If the appellants have not deposited the amount then the same shall be deposited before the Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from the Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 23:38:49 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/290/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025 undefined date of receipt of this order. If the amount is deposited by the appellants before the Reference Court, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants after verifying their bank details through RTGS / NEFT. Registry is directed to send back the record and proceedings to the Reference Court forthwith. No order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 23:38:49 IST 2025