Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Prahaladbhai Chunilal ... on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2821/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2821 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Versus
PRAHALADBHAI CHUNILAL SATHWARADECEASED & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS AGNEYA MANKAD, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant-State under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and award dated 23.10.2008 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, F.T.C. No.1, Mehsana (hereinafter be referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Reference Case Nos.1 to 16 of 2005 whereby the Reference Court partly allowed the Reference Case Nos. 1 to 16 of 2005 and awarded amount of Rs.82.00 per Sq. Mtr. over and above the amount of compensation awarded by Special Land Acquisition Officer.
2. The facts in brief are that the competent authority under the Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 02:19:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2821/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined Land Acquisition Act had acquired land situated at Village Kherva, Taluka and District Mehsana, belonging to the respondents-original claimants for the purpose of extension of Jalashay. The notification under Section 4 has been published by the competent authority under the Act on 4.7.2002 and after following due procedure, notification under Section 6 was published on 24.10.2002 and thereafter, the lands came to be acquired. Award came to be passed by the Land Acquisition Officer in L.A.Q. Case No.13 of 2002, whereby the Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.18.10/- per sq. mtr. for the irrigated land.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said award, the original claimants preferred Land Reference Case Nos. 1 to 16 of 2005 before the Reference Court.
4. The Reference Court after hearing both the parties and after evaluating the evidence placed on record has passed the impugned judgment and award, awarded Rs.82/- per sq. mtr. over and above the compensation already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the State has preferred present appeal.
5. Heard Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants. Though served, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondents-claimants.
6. Learned AGP for the appellant has submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error in passing the impugned judgment and award. She has submitted that the Reference Court has without Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 02:19:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2821/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined assigning any reason has increased the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. She has also submitted that the claimants have not produced any evidence to prove or show that they are entitled to more compensation. She has submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence produced by the appellant and therefore, she urges before the Court that present appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court may be quashed and set aside.
7. It appears that in identical group of appeals arising from the same village i.e. Kherva, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and award dated 9.9.2010 passed in First Appeal No. 441 of 2010 and allied matters, has already decided the similar issue. In the said appeals the lands were acquired for the purpose of "Sujlam Suflam" Spreading Canal, whereas in present case, the lands were acquired for the purpose of extension of Jalashay.
8. The Division Bench of this Court, after hearing both the sides and after evaluating the evidence placed on record has confirmed the order passed by the Reference Court.
9. Present appeal is squarely covered by the said judgment and award dated 9.10.2010 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 441 of 2010 and allied matters.
10. In view of the above, learned AGP is unable to canvas her contention, as the present appeal is already covered by the said judgment and award.
Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 02:19:51 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2821/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025 undefined
11. In view of the above and in view of the decision of this Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakor reported in 2010 GLH 3 447, present appeal does not deserves to be entertained and the same is required to be dismissed. Accordingly, present appeal is hereby dismissed in view of the above referred judgment.
12. The amount deposited by the appellant - State shall be disbursed in favour of respondents - claimants after following due procedure through R.T.G.S. / N.E.F.T., within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Interim relief, if any stands vacated forthwith. Record and proceedings if received, be sent back to the concerned Reference Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Sep 17 02:19:51 IST 2025