Udabhai Motibhai vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 18248 Guj

     C/FA/2013/2019                               ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2013 of 2019

==========================================================
                            UDABHAI MOTIBHAI
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR VIJAY N RAVAL(2025) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MANRAJ BAROT, AGP (1) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.G.URAIZEE

                              Date : 08/12/2021
                               ORAL ORDER

1. Admit. Mr.Manraj Barot, learned AGP waives service of notice of admission for the respondent-State.

2. The appeal is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned advocate for the respective parties, as the issue involved in the appeal lies in the narrow compass.

3. The judgment and order dated 16.1.2018 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anand, in Land Reference Case No.802 of 2006, is challenged by the claimant in this appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short "the LA Act").

4. The Facts giving rise to this appeal could be gathered from the impugned judgment and connected materials are that the appellant preferred reference under Section 18 of

C/FA/2013/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021

the LA Act for enhancement of compensation awarded by respondent No.2 for acquisition of land of the appellant for the purpose of construction of canal of Narmada Yojna. The Reference Court rejected the reference for want of prosecution, as he did not participate in the reference proceedings.

5. I have heard Mr.VN Raval, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr.Manraj Barod, learned AGP for the respondents-State.

6. Mr.Raval, learned advocate submits that some of the cognate references are settled in Lok Adalat and compensation is enhanced. He further submits that the process of settlement of the impugned LAR was also submitted. However, settlement could not materialize. He further submits that the LA Act has lost the land, which was his only source of livelihood. He further submits that the matter may be remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration. He, therefore, submits that Reference Court ought to have given more opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence instead of rejecting the reference on the ground of non-production of evidence by the appellant.

7. Mr.Barot, learned AGP has supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the Reference Court and submits that enough opportunity was given by the

C/FA/2013/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021

Reference Court to the appellant to adduce the evidence. However, the appellant did not avail this opportunity. He, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment does not warrant interference. He further submits that he has not objection, if the matter is remanded to the Reference Court for fresh consideration.

8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and also perused the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court.

9. The LA Act is a benevolent piece of legislation, which ensures that adequate compensation is given to the land owner, if the land is acquired by the State for public purpose. The learned Reference Court has rejected the reference preferred under Section 18 of the LA Act by the appellant solely on the ground that the appellant did not participate in the proceedings of the Reference. The appellant whose land is acquired by the State for public purpose does not stand to give by remaining absent in the proceedings of reference under Section 18 of the LA Act which is initiated at his instance.

10. Under the circumstances, the Reference Court is required to adopt humanitarian approach and should not dismisses such reference for want of prosecution. In fact, it should give enough opportunity to the land owners to produce evidence so that justice is done in the matter.

C/FA/2013/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/12/2021

11, In the case on hand, the Reference Court instead of rejecting the reference for want of prosecution, ought to have given one more chance to the appellant by issuing notice to him to produce evidence in support of his reference. However, the Court below, it appears from the impugned judgment and order, has not given any such notice to the appellant and straightway has proceed to reject the reference. I am, therefore, of the consider view that the appellant deserves one more chance to adduce evidence in support of his reference as great prejudice is caused to him by rejection of his reference more particularly some cognate reference are settled in Lok Adalat and compensation is enhanced.

12. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order rejecting the reference is hereby set aside. The matter is referred to the Reference Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant, as expeditiously as possible.

It is clarified that this Court has not examined the merits of the case.

(A.G.URAIZEE, J) ALI