Gujarat High Court
Heirs Of Decd. Sagar Karna Ghela vs State Of Gujarat on 1 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4202 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4203 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4204 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4208 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4209 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting No Yes
No
=====================================================
HEIRS OF DECD. SAGAR KARNA GHELA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
MS. HEMALI D. SONI, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 01/05/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The common judgment and award passed in LAR Cases consisting of LAR Case Nos.211 of 1993 to 222 of 1993 is Page 1 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined appealed by the original claimant under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. By impugned common judgment and award, the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Khambhaliya being a Reference Court, partly allowed the reference under Section 18 of 'the Act' and granted the compensation of Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land, Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land and Rs.1/- per sq. mtr. for the wasteland.
3. It is an acquisition of the land for the public purpose of Vartun-2 irrigation scheme in a village Ishwariya, Taluka:
Porbandar, District: Junagadh. The Notification under Section 4 of 'the Act' was published on 14.12.1989 followed by the Notification under Section 6 of 'the Act' published on 05.12.1990.
4. The LAQ was numbered as Case No.35 of 1989 and whereby, after issuing a notice to the concerned parties, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has granted Rs.120/- per are for the irrigated land, Rs.85/- per are for the non-irrigated land and Rs.1/- per are for the wasteland.
5. The claimants, since were aggrieved, within the time- limit preferred a Reference under Section 18 of 'the Act' before the Reference Court. The learned Reference Court permitted both the parties to lead the evidence and relied upon the judgment in LRC No.111 of 1994 to 155 of 1994 produced at Exhibit-75 and taking it has an exampler and further taking the assistance from the judgments of the Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No.213 Page 2 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined of 2014 as well as of the Division Bench in First Appeal No.939 of 2013 to 944 of 2013, judgment of which notifies the precedent that the compensation awarded in the acquisition of the nearby village can be taken as an example to decide the compensation.
6. The learned Reference Court further referred to acquisition of the Village Viramgam and ultimately passed the aforesaid judgment and order of compensation.
7. Being further aggrieved, the original plaintiffs preferred this batch of appeals.
8. Arguing for the claimants, learned advocate Mr. Tejas P. Satta relied upon the judgment of this Court in First Appeal No.4224 of 2024 and allied matters, more particularly para 5 thereof to submit that this Court has taken the reference of the coordinate Bench Judgment in First Appeal No.249 of 2023 and allied matters in the case of Sumer Osman Patel v. Deputy Collector Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation & Anr., decided on 06.10.2025, whereby for the similar public purpose of Vartun-2 Irrigation scheme for the adjoining village, has considered the coordinate Bench assessment at Rs.25.23/- per sq. mtr.
8.1 He would submit that in view of the said judgment, this Court may also decide present batch of appeals accordingly.
9. Per contra, learned AGP Ms. Hemali D. Soni having referred to the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No.4224 of 2024 and allied matters, submitted to pass the necessary order.
Page 3 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
10. At the outset, let me refer the judgment passed by this Court in First Appeal No.4224 of 2024 and allied matters, whereby the group of the appeals were disposed of in a land acquisition for the same Vartun-2 Irrigation scheme in nearby village of Aambaliyara, Taluka: Bhanvad. The Notification under Section 4 in that case was published on December, 1989. In the present case also, the Notification is published in December, 1989. The fixing of compensation by the Special Land Acquisition Officer is also on similar quantification.
11. Learned AGP Ms. Hemali D. Soni, in her utter fairness, submitted that there is more similarities than the dissimilarities in the acquisition on the case on hand and the acquisition of the land being the subject matter of the First Appeal No.4224 of 2024 and allied matters.
11.1 She further submitted that the distance between village Ishwariya and village Aambaliyara is approximately 9 - 10 kms only. Topographical conditions as well as overall conditions of both the village are almost same.
12. While applying the reasons stated before this Court in First Appeal No.4224 of 2024 and allied matters for enhancement of the compensation, I find that the present batch of appeals deserve consideration.
13. Para 5 to 10 of the judgment passed in First Appeal No.4224 of 2024 and allied matters is relevant, which reads as under:-
"5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Tejas Satta appearing Page 4 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined for the claimants referred to the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in First Appeal No.249 of 2023 and allied matters in the case of Sumer Osman Patel Vs. Deputy Collector Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation & Anr. Decided on 06.10.2025, and submitted that, for the same public purpose of Vartun-2 Irrigation Scheme and the adjoining village, the Co-ordinate Bench has assessed the compensation at Rs.25.23 per sq. mtr. relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He further submits that up on impugned judgeanent, the Hon'ble Ref. Court relied up on decision given in group LAR No. 111/1994 to 155/1994 and determined amount of compensation, but in the said Group LARS. 111/1994 to 155/1994 the reliance is placed up on Group LAR No. 129/1993 to 139/1993, up on which aforesaid F.A. No. 249/2023 and others, have been preferred. So, as the F.A. No. 249/2023 and others decided by this Hon'ble Court finally, the same will apply to present case also. He further submitted that the same principle adopted by the Co-ordinate Bench for enhancement of compensation be applied to the present case. Upon above submissions, he has prayed to allow the present First Appeals.
6. As against the aforesaid submissions, learned AGPs Mr.Bharat Vyas, Mr.Shailesh Desai and Ms.Hemali Soni appearing in the respective matters tendered a communication dated 20.03.2026 received from the State Government and submitted that no decisions has yet been taken by the State Government to challenge the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in First Appeal No.249 of 2023 and allied matters. Further, learned AGP relied upon the case of Kantaben Manibhai Amin Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Baroda reported in1990(1)GLR 164 SC and submitted that where the compensation is determined for irrigated land, the compensation for non-irrigated land may be assessed at 25% less than of irrigated land. Therefore, it is submitted that in the present case, the necessary order be passed considering the judgment of Kantaben (supra).
7. At the outset, having heard the learned advocates for both the sides, it appears that, in the judgment passed by the Co- ordinate Bench in First Appeal No.249 of 2023 and allied Page 5 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined matters refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Hariyana reported in (2016) 4 SCC 544 and Narendra and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426 and enhanced the compensation to Rs.25.23/- per sq. mtr. The relevant reasons, discussions and findings of the Co- ordinate Bench are extracted hereinbelow:-
'10. In the case of Narendra (Supra), in paragraph Nos.5 and 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the issue on the award of just and fair compensation and has observed as under:-
'5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the issue has already been settled by this Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana wherein it is held that it is the duty of the court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of claim made by the landowner and there is no cap on the maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by the court and the courts are not restricted to awarding only that amount that has been claimed by the landowners/applicants in their application before it. The relevant paragraphs of this judgment are quoted as under: (SCC pp. 546-48, paras 6-7 & 10-11) "6. Prior to Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the amount of compensation that could be awarded by the Court was limited to the amount claimed by the applicant. Section 25 read as under:
25. Rules as to amount of compensation.- (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.
(2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by Page 6 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.
(3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector.
The amended Section 25 reads as under:
25. Amount of compensation awarded by court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector. The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.' The amendment has come into effect on 24-9-1984.
7. The pre-amended provision puts a cap on the maximum; the compensation by court should not be beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, puts a cap on the minimum: compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner.
9. In Bhag Singh v. UT of Chandigarh, this Court held that there may be situations where the amount higher than the amount claimed may be awarded to the claimant. The Court observed: (SCC p. 741, para 3) '3.... It must be remembered that this was not a dispute between two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate to confine the claimant to the claim made by him and not to award him any higher amount than that claimed though even in such a case there may be Page 7 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined situations where an amount higher than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account. Here was a claim made by the appellants against the State Government for compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law, the State was bound to pay to the appellants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and if according to the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, the market value of the land acquired was higher than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional District Judge, there is no reason why the appellants should have been denied the benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To deny this benefit to the appellants would tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land of the appellants on payment of less than the true market value.
There may be cases where, as for instance, under agrarian reform legislation, the holder of land may, legitimately, as a matter of social justice with a view to eliminating concentration of land in the hands of a few and bringing about its equitable distribution, be deprived of land which is not being personally cultivated by him or which is in excess of the ceiling area with payment of little compensation or no compensation at all, but where land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value when the law, in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market value.'
10. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal, his Court held that under the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the Court can grant a higher compensation than that claimed by the applicant in his pleadings....
11. Further, in Bhimasha v. LAO, a three-Judge Bench reiterated the principle in Bhag Singh and rejected the contention that a higher compensation than that claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot be awarded by the Court."
(emphasis supplied) Page 8 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined
8. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those landowners who are agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined. which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court. It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the legislature. Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind. the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sell off their land. They were compelled to give the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and appeal to the High Court, etc. In order to ensure that the landowners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for "fair compensation". Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all landowners whose land was taken away by the same notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied Page 9 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined to them."
11. In paragraph no.5, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also taken into consideration the decision of Ashok Kumar (Supra). It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.8 in the case of Narendra (supra) that strict rule of pleadings are not to be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration.
12. The purpose behind the enactment of the Land Acquisition Act is to ensure that the landowners who have lost their land and livelihood due to acquisitions are awarded just and reasonable compensation. Such compensation must be determined based on the market value of the land. For determining the market value of land, out of various relevant factors, one of the factor is the yield basis i.e. how much income earned by applicant/s from the land, which is acquired by the acquiring body.
In the present case, learned Reference Court after considering the evidence on record, observed and come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.25.23 per sq. meter. However, learned Reference Court awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. meter for Bagayat land, Rs.15/- per sq. meter for Jirayat land and Rs.1/- per sq. meter for Kharaba land. In my view, the approach of learned Reference Court, is against the settled proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (Supra) and Narendra (supra).
13. Considering the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions, more particularly, since the learned Reference Court has undisputedly observed that the landowners are entitled to more compensation than claimed, in my view, the learned Reference Court has committed an error by awarding compensation of Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land, Rs.15 per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land and Rs.1/- per sq. meter for Kharaba land. Therefore, appellants are entitled to maximum compensation and the purpose of the Act, would be satisfied, if the claimants are granted Page 10 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined compensation of Rs.25.23/- per sq. meter for the acquired land alongwith statutory benefits on the differential amount.
8. It is noticeable that, while enhancing the compensation to Rs.25.23/- per sq. mtr. the learned Co- ordinate Bench did not classify the compensation be awarded for irrigated and non-irrigated land. Following the judgment of Kantaben (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench, in First Appeal No.1628 of 2007 and allied matters, in the case of Executive Engineer Vs. Thakor Pradhanji Surasangji, it has been held in paragraph 5 as under:-
"5.However, it appears that the Reference Court in the impugned award has lost sight of the important aspect of the difference in the valuation between a irrigated land and nonirrigated land. If the valuation of the irrigated land is assessed as Rs.17/- per sq. mtrs., valuation for non-irrigated land would not be the same. It is by now settled that the valuation of the irrigated land would be higher by 25% in comparison to the valuation of the non- irrigated land. The reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Kantaben v. Special Land Acquisition Officer", reported in AIR 1990 SC, 103. Therefore, if the same principles are applied, the consequence would be that for irrigated land, if the valuation is of Rs.17/- per sq. mtrs., then for non- irrigated land the valuation would Rs.12.75 per sq. mtrs."
9. Thus, the valuation of irrigated land for compensation shall remain 25% higher than that of non-irrigated land.
10. In view of the above, and considering that the issue has already been settled by the Co-ordinate Bench with regard to land acquired for the same public purpose under Vartu-2 Irrigation Scheme, I hereby enhance the compensation to Rs.25.23 per sq. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.19/- per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land (Rs.25.23 - 6.3), being 25% less than the valuation of irrigated land."
14. Borrowing the aforesaid finding and applying the same to the present case, I fix the compensation for the irrigated Page 11 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/4202/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/05/2026 undefined land at Rs.25.23/- per sq. mtr., for the non-irrigated land at Rs.19/- per sq. mtr. and for wasteland at Rs.10/- per sq. mtr. with all the statutory benefits.
15. Aforesaid compensation includes the compensation already fixed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as the learned Reference Court.
16. In view of above, the appeals are allowed. In aforesaid terms, the compensation is enhanced and accordingly, the respondents are directed to deposit the differential amount, after deducting the already determined and deposited amount of compensation, within 08 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
16.1 It is clarified again that the claimant/s are not entitled to the interest on additional amount of compensation awarded by this Court for the delayed period.
17. The learned Reference Court is directed to disburse the amount of compensation deposited by the State Government after deducting Court fee to the claimants along with interest and after due verification and identification and after verifying their right to claim the compensation.
18. Registry to maintain copy of this order in each matter.
18.1 Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.) Raj Page 12 of 12 Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Mon May 04 2026 Downloaded on : Tue May 05 02:45:58 IST 2026