Gujarat High Court
Land Acquisition Officer vs Patel Gangaram Ranchhoddas on 5 April, 2023
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/FA/2283/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2283 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2145 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2148 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2148 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2141 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2141 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2142 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2142 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2143 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2143 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2284 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2144 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2020
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2144 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2137 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2275 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2158 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2276 of 2020
With
Page 1 of 11
Downloaded on : Wed Apr 12 20:30:33 IST 2023
C/FA/2283/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/04/2023
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2138 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2277 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2278 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2279 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2139 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2146 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2290 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2140 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2157 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2448 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2289 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2286 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2285 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2450 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2150 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2281 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2149 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2147 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2156 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2291 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2320 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2153 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2152 of 2020
Page 2 of 11
Downloaded on : Wed Apr 12 20:30:33 IST 2023
C/FA/2283/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/04/2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed No
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Versus
PATEL GANGARAM RANCHHODDAS
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYASINH JADEJA, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
for the Defendant(s) No. 5
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5.1,5.2,5.3,6
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. A. JOSHI
Date : 05/04/2023
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)
1. As the issues involved in all the captioned appeals are
the same and the challenge in all the appeals is also to a
C/FA/2283/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/04/2023
selfsame judgment and award passed by the 3 rd Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana, those were heard analogously and
are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. These First Appeals emanate from judgment and award
passed by learned 3rd Additional Civil Judge, Mehsana, in Land
Reference Case No.1499 of 2011, 1550 of 2011 and allied
matters. The land of Village-Nugar, Taluka & District-Mehsana,
which were subject matter of reference, were acquired for the
public purpose of Mehsana By-pass Highway for which
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for the sake of brevity)
was published in official gazette on 31.7.2008 and Notification
under Section 6 of the Act was published on 2 nd May 2009.
After hearing the respective parties and examining the facts as
well as oral evidence, Reference Court enhanced
compensation from Rs.30 per sq.mtr. as awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer for road touch land to
Rs.2044.64 per sq.mtr. and Rs.25 per sq.mtr. for remaining
land to Rs.2453 per sq.mtr.
3. Thus, it appears that the learned 3 rd Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Mehsana partly allowed all the Land Acquisition
References and granted additional compensation at the rate of
Rs.2069.64 per sq.mtr, which after deducting the
compensation of Rs.25/- per sq.mtr as already awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, comes to Rs.2044.64/- per
sq.mtr for the agricultural land which is not road touch and
Rs.2483.56/- per sq. mtr, which after deducting the
compensation of Rs.30/- per sq.mtr as already awarded by the
C/FA/2283/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/04/2023
Special Land Acquisition Officer, comes to Rs.2053.56/- per
sq.mtr for the road touch agricultural land.
4. Learned AGP, Mr.Jadeja appearing for the State
authorities has submitted that the Court below has seriously
erred in awarding additional compensation on higher side, over
and above the compensation awarded by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. It is submitted that the Court below has not
appropriately considered the evidence, which has surfaced on
record. It is submitted that the Reference Court has fallen in
error in discarding the award of Special Land Acquisition
Officer and without assigning any cogent and convincing
reasons, the amount of compensation could not have been
enhanced. It is submitted that the Reference Court, without
ascertaining any award having been passed in the adjoining
village or same village and, without considering any
comparable instances, the amount could not have been
enhanced. Thus, the award is required to be quashed and set
aside. Thus, learned AGP has submitted that the impugned
judgment and award is required to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Prajapati has
vehemently opposed all the appeals and submitted that no
error, not to speak of any error of law, could be said to have
been committed by the Reference Court in passing the
impugned judgment and award. Mr. Prajapati has submitted
that the Reference Court has primarily considered judgment
and award passed by the Reference Court with regard to the
lands, which are acquired in the adjoining Village-Panchot for
C/FA/2283/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/04/2023
the very same purpose and, accordingly, after deducting 10%
with regard to difference of notification, amount of additional
compensation is precisely fixed. Today, by order of even date,
this Court has confirmed the judgment and award passed by
the Reference Court with regard to acquisition of land for
Village-Panchot. The Reference Court has considered that for
the land acquired of Village-Panchot, Section 4 Notification was
published on 11.2.2009, whereas for the land acquired for
Village-Nugar, Notification has been published on 31.7.2008.
Hence, after determining the land at par with the land acquired
for Village-Panchot, Reference Court has deducted 10% for the
difference of six months for Section 6 Notification issued for
Village-Panchot and Village-Nugar respectively. Accordingly,
Reference Court has awarded aforesaid amount by deducting
10% from the amount of compensation, which has been
awarded for the land acquired of Village-Panchot. The
Reference Court has accordingly awarded Rs.2044.64 for the
agricultural lands, which are not road touch land, and
Rs.2453.56 for the road touch land.
6. In such circumstances, referred to above, Mr. Prajapati
prays that there being no merit in these appeals, they are
required to be dismissed summarily by confirming the
judgment and award dated 31.08.2018 passed by the 3 rd
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana.
7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and having gone through the materials on record, the
only question that falls for our consideration is whether the
C/FA/2283/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/04/2023
court below has committed any error in passing the impugned
judgment and award.
8. During the course of hearing, learned advocate Mr.
Prajapati has drawn the attention of this Court to the map of
the area which we have gone through, and after perusal of the
same, it reveals that Village-Nugar is at the distance of about
6.5 kilometers from Village-Panchot. While deciding the
compensation of land acquired for Village-Panchot, the
Reference Court has placed reliance on the District Valuation
Committee Report for the Village-Nagalpur, where amount of
Rs.3,000/- was determined and, considered the distance of
Village-Nugar and Village-Nagalpur, which is approximately 6.7
kilometers. Since we have already confirmed the award, which
is passed for the land acquired of adjoining Village-Panchot in
First Appeal No.4406 of 2018 and allied matters, we are of the
opinion that Reference Court has precisely deducted 10%
amount, looking to the difference in date of issue of
Notification under Section 4 of the Act for both the Villages i.e.
Panchot and Nugar.
9. For the purpose of coming to an ultimate conclusion, we
may deem it proper to reproduce the findings recorded by the
court below as under;
"17. Also the claimants have mainly relied upon the
Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Sr. Civil Judge,
Mehsana in L.R. Group Case No.1620/11 to 1713/11
wherein, the Reference Court awarded Rs.2824.95/-
per sq. meter for road touch agricultural land and
Rs.2178.57/- per sq. meter for the agricultural land
which is not road touch in respect of acquired lands
C/FA/2283/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/04/2023
of village Panchot. It is stated by the claimants that
the lands covered under the previous judgment and
the lands under acquisition of present case are
adjoining nearby village, and acquired under the
same scheme and therefore, the said judgment is
required to be taken into consideration for fixing the
market value of present acquired lands of village
Nugar.
17.1 Herein in this case, as discussed above, both
the lands are of village Panchot and Nugar are
nearby villages and therefore, the previous
judgment of nearby village can be taken into
consideration for fixing the just and reasonable
market value of the present acquired lands. The
Land Acquisition Officer has taken into consideration
sale instances before 5 years from the date of
notification u/sec.4(1), and thereafter, decided the
market prices of the acquired lands on the basis of
surmise of certain sale transactions of low prices,
therefore, the compensation awarded to the
claimants, is inadequate. The value of property
increases year by year. If the Land Acquisition
Officer might have considered the inflation and
increasing prices of the properties, he might have
taken correct approach while fixing the actual
market prices in respect to the lands acquired. Even
though he has not done so and awarded
compensation merely on the basis of surmises,
which is not correct. Even opponents have not
produced the sale instances relying upon which they
fixed the market price at the time of award. As
decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in one
pronouncement in case of Second Addl. Sp. Land
Acquisition Officer & Anr., vs. Chunilal Gangaram &
Ors., reported in 1999 (2) GLR 1357 that one
previous judgment in respect of the land situated in
adjoining village having Gram Panchayat and
adjoining simada, reference Court has not
committed any error in relying on the previous
judgment pertaining to lands of adjoining village and
acquired for the same project. Here in the present
case, the acquired lands of cited case and present
C/FA/2283/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/04/2023
acquired lands are of adjoining village and it is
adjacent to each other and going through the
records of the case it appears that the acquired
lands under the L.R. Case No.1620/11 (Main) of
village Panchot and the acquired lands of present
case of village Nugar are similar in nature and of the
adjoining village. Therefore, the judgment produced
can be looked into, for fixing the actual market price
of the acquired lands of village Nugar.
17.2 Now, as discussed above, looking to the
judgments relied upon by the claimant, wherein, the
Hon'ble Court has awarded a sum of Rs.2824.95/-
per sq. mtr. for road touch agricultural land and
Rs.2178.57/- per sq.mtr. For the agricultural land
which is not road touch in respect of acquired lands
of village Panchot, i.e, adjoining village and
considering all aspects pertaining to the acquired
lands, the lands are same in all respects and are of
the adjoining village. In the above referred judgment
of village Panchot produced and relied upon by the
claimants, the Notification u/s.4 at the place were
published on 11.2.09 in LAR Case No.1620/11, in
which the market price of the acquired land was
fixed as Rs.2178.57/- per sq.mtr. for the agricultural
land which is not road touch by the reference court,
whereas, in the present case the Notification u/s.4
was published at the place on 31/7/08 in Award
Case No.5/2008.
So there is difference of approximately 6 months in
between the notifications published in both the
cases. As in the present case the notification was
published on 31/7/08, hence the actual market
prices can be calculated 10% p.a. decrease for the
six months from the amount as fixed in L.R.C
No.1620/11. Hence, I am of the view that,
considering the judgment relied by the claimants, if
the market value of Rs.2069.64 sq. mtr for the
agricultural land which is not road touch is to be
awarded to the claimants, and for the road touch
agricultural land, market value of Rs.2483.56 sq.mtr
is to be awarded then it will meet the end of justice.
C/FA/2283/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/04/2023
This is the market price of the acquired land and
from this amount deducting paid amount of Rs.25/-
per sq.meter from Rs.2069.64, the figure comes to
Rs.2044.64 for the agricultural land which is not
road touch, and from this amount deducting paid
amount of Rs.30/- per sq. meter, from Rs.2483.56,
the figure comes to 2453.56 for the agricultural land
which is road touch which is the amount of
additional compensation.
17.3 Looking to the record, non-irrigated lands of
the applicants, have been acquired. Under this
circumstances, in the present case, price of
Rs.2044.64 per sq.meter for the agricultural land
which is not road touch, and Rs.2453.56 per
sq.meter for the agricultural land which is road
touch which is the amount of additional
compensation to be awarded after deducting the
payment received by the claimants."
10. Thus, upon perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by
the court below as well as after going through the record and
proceedings and the materials available on record, we are of
the view that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the
evidence available on record in its true perspective, and on the
strength of the material available on record, the learned Trial
Court has rightly arrived at a conclusion by enhancing the
amount of compensation from Rs.25/- per sq. mtr. to
Rs.2044.64/- per sq. mtr for the agricultural land which is not
road touch and from Rs.30/- to Rs.2453.56/- per sq. mtr. for the
road touch land.
11. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality or
perversity in the impugned judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court, and in the absence of any perversity being
found, no interference is called for at the end of this Court.
C/FA/2283/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/04/2023
12. In the result, all the First Appeals are dismissed. Record
and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial Court
forthwith. Amount deposited before the Reference Court shall
be disbursed to the claimants after due verification.
Sd/-
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
Sd/-
(D. A. JOSHI,J)
R.S. MALEK
