Gujarat High Court
Chaudhari Kantibhai Varvabhai vs Deputy Collector on 1 March, 2021
Bench: Vineet Kothari, Biren Vaishnav
C/FA/1810/2018 JUDGMENT Dt. 01.03.2021
CHAUDHARI KANTIBHAI VARVABHAI Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 other(s)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
1. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1810 of 2018
With
2. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1821 of 2018
With
3. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1822 of 2018
With
4. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1823 of 2018
With
5. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1824 of 2018
With
6. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1825 of 2018
With
7. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1826 of 2018
With
8. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1827 of 2018
With
9. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1828 of 2018
With
10. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1817 of 2018
With
Page 1 of 9
Downloaded on : Wed Mar 03 21:28:43 IST 2021
C/FA/1810/2018 JUDGMENT Dt. 01.03.2021
CHAUDHARI KANTIBHAI VARVABHAI Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 other(s)
11. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1818 of 2018
With
12. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1819 of 2018
With
13. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1820 of 2018
With
14. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1811 of 2018
With
15. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1813 of 2018
With
16. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1814 of 2018
With
17. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1815 of 2018
With
18. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1816 of 2018
With
19. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1955 of 2014
With
20. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1956 of 2014
With
21. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1957 of 2014
With
Page 2 of 9
Downloaded on : Wed Mar 03 21:28:43 IST 2021
C/FA/1810/2018 JUDGMENT Dt. 01.03.2021
CHAUDHARI KANTIBHAI VARVABHAI Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 other(s)
22. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1958 of 2014
With
23. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1959 of 2014
With
24. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1960 of 2014
With
25. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1961 of 2014
With
26. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1962 of 2014
With
27. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1963 of 2014
With
28. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1964 of 2014
With
29. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1965 of 2014
With
30. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2346 of 2015
With
31. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2347 of 2015
With
32. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2348 of 2015
With
Page 3 of 9
Downloaded on : Wed Mar 03 21:28:43 IST 2021
C/FA/1810/2018 JUDGMENT Dt. 01.03.2021
CHAUDHARI KANTIBHAI VARVABHAI Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 other(s)
33. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2349 of 2015
With
34. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2350 of 2015
With
35. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2351 of 2015
With
36. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2352 of 2015
With
37. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2353 of 2015
With
38. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2354 of 2015
With
39. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2355 of 2015
With
40. R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1348 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to No
Page 4 of 9
Downloaded on : Wed Mar 03 21:28:43 IST 2021
C/FA/1810/2018 JUDGMENT Dt. 01.03.2021
CHAUDHARI KANTIBHAI VARVABHAI Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 other(s)
see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of No
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of No
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India
or any order made thereunder ?
=============================================
CHAUDHARI KANTIBHAI VARVABHAI
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 other(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR SOAHAM JOSHI, AGP (1) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 01/03/2021
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. All these Appeals are filed by the Original Claimants being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Gandhinagar in respective Land Reference Cases. The
claimants have approached this Court for enhancement of
compensation.
C/FA/1810/2018 JUDGMENT Dt. 01.03.2021
CHAUDHARI KANTIBHAI VARVABHAI Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 other(s)
2. The Reference Court partly allowed the reference holding
that the claimants are entitled to get an amount of
Rs.241.00 per square meter for the acquired land as
additional compensation over and above the compensation
already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer.
3. Briefly stated, in the respective Land Reference Cases, the
date of publication of Notification under Section 4(A) of the
Act was 13.9.2004, the date of the award passed by the land
Acquisition Officer was 2.8.2005.
4. Deliberations to enhance the compensation in the respective
Land Reference Cases is not a matter of dispute as
submitted by Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned counsel for the
Appellants. He would rely on order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.90619110 of 2011
dated 1.11.2017. The purpose of acquisition in the case
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was with regard to
acquisition for ONGC whereas in the present case, the
C/FA/1810/2018 JUDGMENT Dt. 01.03.2021
CHAUDHARI KANTIBHAI VARVABHAI Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 other(s)
acquisition was for construction of Sujlam Suflam Spreading
Canal. The lands were contiguous, inasmuch as, the lands in
the present Appeals are of Mansa and Bapupura villages
respectively which were also the lands concerned before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even the date of Notification was of
the year 2004. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid
appeals held as under:
"Coming to the question of determination of
compensation made by the Reference Court, by
relying on the Award, passed in the case of ONGC,
in which, acquisition had been made in October,
1999, for a small area, and compensation had been
determined at the rate of Rs.431 per square meter.
In the absence of any other evidence, we take the
same into consideration for determining the
compensation. However, we propose to make certain
deductions. The valuation worked out by the
Reference Court, by adding 10 per cent per annum,
comes to the figure of Rs.646.50 per square meter.
We have to deduct approximately 2425 per cent of
the compensation towards development and
smallness. The area that had been acquired for the
purposes of ONGC was small; but, considering the
potentiality of land, we make this slightly lesser
C/FA/1810/2018 JUDGMENT Dt. 01.03.2021
CHAUDHARI KANTIBHAI VARVABHAI Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 other(s)
deduction; as deduction even up to 60 per cent is
permissible. This deduction is made in the peculiar
facts of the case, and considering the development
that has taken place around that place. Thus, the
compensation had been worked out at Rs.646.50
per square meter, deducting 24/25 per cent from
the same, the value comes at rate of Rs.491 per
square meter. We award compensation at the rate
of Rs.491 per square meter along with statutory
benefits, the compensation that remains disbursed
be paid within a period of three months from
today."
Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court awarded
compensation @ Rs.491/ per square meter alongwith the
statutory benefits.
5. Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader
would attempt to distinguish the order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in context of the case of village Bapupura.
However, reading of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court
would indicate that even in the case of village Bapupura, the
Appeals were remitted to the High Court and when both
C/FA/1810/2018 JUDGMENT Dt. 01.03.2021
CHAUDHARI KANTIBHAI VARVABHAI Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR & 1 other(s)
villages Bapupura and Mansa are within the same Taluka,
we see no reason to take a different view and therefore we
think it fit in enhancing the compensation in the respective
Land Reference Cases and award compensation @ Rs.491/
per square meter alongwith the statutory benefits.
6. In view of above, the Appeals are accordingly allowed. The
compensation is enhanced accordingly. The award stands
modified and the Appellants shall be entitled to
compensation of Rs.491/ per square meter alongwith the
statutory benefits. Compensation shall be paid within three
months from today.
(DR. VINEET KOTHARI,J.)
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J.)
*** VATSAL
