Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer vs Heirs Of Idalkhan Sherkhan on 29 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2176/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2176 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2177 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
-
==========================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Versus
HEIRS OF IDALKHAN SHERKHAN & ORS.
==========================================
Appearance:
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR HITESH B PATEL(1972) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.3,1.4,1.5
RULE NOT RECD BACK for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 29/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are filed by the appellants under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 against the judgment and award dated 16.05.2008 passed by the learned 6 th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur, District:
Ahmedabad (hereinafter be referred to as "the Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.591 of 2001 to 592 of Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:11:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2176/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined 2001 (main Land Acquisition Reference Case No.591 of 2001) whereby the Reference Court has awarded additional amount of Rs.72/- per square meter with other consequential benefits to the appellants / claimants. Notification Under Section 4 of the Act in respect of lands under acquisition was issued on 16.02.1994 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 28.02.1994. The Special Land Acquisition Officer under Section 11 of the Act, vide its award dated 04.01.1996 awarded Rs.5/- to the claimants as compensation for acquired lands for the purpose of construction of Sub-Station. Against such award, the claimants approached the Reference Court claiming compensation of Rs.100/- per square meter under Section 18 of the Act.
2. The Reference Court has, after considering the submissions of both the sides and oral as well as documentary evidence, allowed the References and awarded additional compensation of Rs.72/- per square meter along with the interest and other statutory benefits.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellants have preferred these appeals.
4. Heard Mr. Viral Dave, learned counsel for the appellants , Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.2 and Mr.Hitesh Patel, learned counsel for the respondents - claimants.
5. Mr.Viral Dave, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:11:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2176/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined appeals and has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is excessive and on higher side and the same deserves to be reduced. He has submitted that the Reference Court has, without considering the relevant materials placed on record and relying upon the award passed in the case of Village: Sanand which is almost 20 kilometer away from Village: Chharodi and considering the development in Village:
Chharodi in comparison of Village: Sanand, is very less, awarded compensation which is on higher side. He has submitted that the case which referred and relied upon by the Reference Court is for the purpose of Sanand - Fangdi - Juval - Bavla Road, for which Notification under Section 4 was issued on 05.09.1991, whereas, in the present case, the Notification under Section 4 was issued on 16.02.1994 and, therefore, there is difference of three years between issuance of the Notifications and, therefore, at least 30% amount deserves to be deducted from the award passed by the Reference Court. He has submitted that it is well settled that if the price is fixed by the acquiring body, after considering all the relevant factors unless and until there is cogent and material evidence produced on record, the same is not disturbed. He has submitted that in the present case, considering the relevant factors, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.72/- per square meter, which is on higher side and, therefore, the same deserves to be interfered with by this Court. Mr.Dave, learned counsel has submitted that the appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be modified to the extent.
5.1 Mr.Dave, learned counsel has submitted that the Reference Court has considered development charges only of 20% which is Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:11:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2176/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined ought to have been considered at the rate of 40% instead of 20% considering the fact that it is for the purpose of installing the Sub-Station and very small chunk of land was acquired and, therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court is excessive and without considering the development nearby vicinity and other aspects with regard to the future prospect of the development of the land.
6. Mr.Hitesh Patel, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment and order dated 29.09.1998 passed in First Appeal No. 3892 of 1998 to First Appeal No. 3896 of 1998, has confirmed the award passed by the Reference Court, which was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the appeals. He has submitted that in view of the aforesaid order, the Court may pass appropriate order.
6.1 Mr.Patel, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that on the contrary, after acquisition, there was huge development in nearby vicinity of Village: Chharodi, where big industries were established and, therefore, considering all these aspects, the Reference Court has rightly awarded the compensation and hence no interference is required to be called for.
7. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for the respective parties and material placed on record and facts of the case. This Court has perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and record and proceedings of the case. Considering of the Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:11:57 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/2176/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/09/2025 undefined facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the Reference Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the judgment and award and in awarding the compensation and hence, no interference is required to be called for. On perusal of the judgment and award, I am of the opinion that the appeals being meritless deserves to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The additional amount of compensation along with the statutory interest and solatium awarded by the Reference Court, if not deposited by the appellants, the same shall be deposited before the Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. On depositing the said amount, the Reference Court shall disburse the same in favour of the claimants after verifying their bank details through RTGS / NEFT. Record and proceedings, if any, be transmitted back to the concerned Reference Court forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Oct 06 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Oct 11 06:11:57 IST 2025