Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Lh Of Decd Joshi Jethalal ... on 27 April, 2023
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
C/FA/1714/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1714 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1715 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1717 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1718 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1719 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1720 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1657 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1722 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1723 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1724 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1725 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1726 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1727 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1728 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1734 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1735 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1736 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1737 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1738 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1739 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1740 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1741 of 2023
With
Page 1 of 10
Downloaded on : Fri Apr 28 20:48:32 IST 2023
C/FA/1714/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1742 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1743 of 2023
==========================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Versus
LH OF DECD JOSHI JETHALAL MANISHANKAR AND JOSHI KIRANBHAI
JETHALAL
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AKASH CHHAYA, MS ROSHNI PATEL and MS SURABHI BHATI, ASST.
GOVERNMENT PLEADERS for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,1.2
MR KM SHETH(838) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.3,2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 27/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth waives service of
notice of admission on behalf of the respondents.
2. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr. Akash
Chhaya, Ms. Roshni Patel and Ms. Surabhi Bhati in respective
First Appeals appearing for the appellant- State and learned
advocate Mr. K.M.Sheth appearing on behalf of the opponents
- original claimants.
3. A very short question is required to be considered by this
Court in the present group of first appeals, hence all the
appeals, with the consent of the learned advocates, are being
decided together.
C/FA/1714/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
4. The present appeals call into question the judgment and
order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vadodara in
Land Acquisition Reference (LAR) Case Nos. 126-150/2014,
the main case being LAR Case No. 130/2014.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth on behalf of the claimants
would submit that the lands in question are situated at
Village-Itola, District-Vadodara and whereas the lands were
acquired by the State for the purpose of construction of
Dabka-Vadu-Bhoj-Sarasvani-Thikari-Itola Road. Learned
advocate would submit that Notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act was published in the Government
Gazette on 21.02.2002 and whereas, Notification under
Section 6 was published on 13.03.2003 and whereas the
award had been declared by the Land Acquisition Officer on
31.07.2004, being aggrieved by the meagre compensation in
which award the claimants had preferred the above referred
References.
5.1. Learned advocate would thereafter draw the attention of
this Court to a statement annexed with the judgment
impugned which has a list of 28 LAR numbers which have
C/FA/1714/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
been decided by the learned Reference Court. Learned
advocate would submit that the present first appeals concern
the entire group except LAR Nos. 149-150/2014.
5.2. Learned advocate would further submit that in the
column of additional amount awarded at the rate of Rs.
324.50/- per sq.meter, the highest amount which is awarded is
Rs. 12,33,100/- which is corelatable with LAR No. 148/2014.
5.3. Learned advocate would thereafter draw the attention of
this Court to a judgment passed by the very same Reference
Court in LAR Case Nos. 122/2014 to 125/2014, main case
being LAR No. 122/2014. Learned advocate would submit that
the said References concerned lands in the very same village
i.e. Village Itola and whereas, the lands had been acquired for
the very same purpose i.e. for the construction of Dabka-Vadu-
Bhoj-Sarasvani-Thikari-Itola Road. Learned advocate would
submit that the Notification under Section 4 in the said group
of References had been issued on 28.02.2002 i.e. a deference
of seven days and whereas the Notification under Section 6
had been issued on 24.07.2003 i.e. around four months after
the notification issued in the present cases. Learned advocate
would thereafter draw the attention to the date of the award
C/FA/1714/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
which is the same in both the cases.
5.4. Learned advocate would submit that even the
enhancement granted by the learned Reference Court vide
judgment dated 04.02.2019 is also the same. Learned
advocate would thereafter draw the attention of this Court to
a statement attached with the judgment which would show
that in LAR No. 125/2014, the additional amount awarded was
Rs. 14,92,700/-. Learned advocate would emphasize on the
amount and would submit that the amount is much higher
than the highest addition amount awarded to any of the
claimant in the present group of appeals i.e. Rs. 12,33,100/-
referred to hereinabove.
5.5. Learned advocate would thereafter draw the attention of
this Court to a document i.e. a communication by the Section
Officer, Road and Building Department to the Executive
Engineer, Panchayat Department, Vadodara dated 06.12.2021
whereby, the judgment of the LAR No. 122/2014 to 125/2014
had been directed to be accepted by the State Government
without treating the same as a precedent.
5.6. Learned advocate would submit that the Government
C/FA/1714/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
having accepted the judgment and order insofar as the LARs
No. 122-125/2014, more particularly, the additional amount
awarded in LAR No. 125/2014 being much higher than the
amount awarded to any individual claimant in the present
group of awards.
5.7. Learned advocate would submit that such being the
case, the State ought not to have discriminated between the
similarly situated persons, more particularly, learned advocate
would submit that in the instant case, in some of the Land
Acquisition Reference Cases, the additional amount awarded
is less than Rs. One Lakh whereas in one particular case i.e. in
LAR No. 128/2014, the additional amount awarded comes to
only Rs. 4,543/-.
5.8. Learned advocate would submit that the Government
having accepted the award, for the lands which had been
acquired for the very selfsame purpose, more particularly, the
lands situated in the very village, therefore, the State
Government ought not to have prefer the present appeals also
and ought to have accepted the said awards.
6. Considering the submissions made by learned advocate
C/FA/1714/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
Mr. Sheth for the respondents, this Court had called upon
learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing in
respective appeals to take instruction and whereas, learned
AGPs, upon instruction of one Mr. N.M.Naikawala, Executive
Engineer, Panchayat Road and Building Division, Vadodara
have confirmed that the judgment in LAR Nos. 122/2014 to
125/2014 have been accepted and whereas, the amount
additionally awarded and deposited with the learned
Reference Court had already been disbursed in favour of the
claimants.
6.1. In this view of the matter, more particularly, since it
clearly appears that two sets of persons, whose lands have
been acquired, more particularly, there being absolute
similarity between the persons i.e. the claimants, could the
Government be permitted to agitate the present group of
appeals, more particularly, when the State had accepted the
judgment of the LAR No. 122/2014 and allied matters. In the
considered opinion of this Court, the answer being an
emphatic no, more particularly, even the Hon'ble Apex Court
also having stated as much in a recent decision.
6.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shivappa vs. The
C/FA/1714/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
Chief Engineer and Others [Civil Appeal Nos. 2694-
2700/2023; order dated 11.04.2023] had inter alia observed
that the State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to
adopt an attitude of pick and choose and whereas, if the State
had accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of
some of the claimants, it could not be permitted to adopt a
different treatment to other claimants since such attitude
smacks of patent discrimination. Paragraph nos. 8, 9, 10 and
11 of the decision being relevant for the purpose, are quoted
hereinbelow for the benefit:-
"8. Another factor that needs to be taken into
consideration is that the respondent-State itself had
filed applications before the High Court for
withdrawal of nine appeals arising out of acquisition
under the same notification.
9. In the said case also, the Reference court had
granted compensation at the rate of Rs. 4,61,250/-
per acre. The High Court, vide order dated
08.03.2016 has allowed the said appeal(s) to be
withdrawn and the same had been placed on record
before this Court in I.A. No. 59170 of 2016. Though a
period of more than six years had lapsed, the said
position is not contested by the respondents.
10. The State or its instrumentalities cannot be
permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose.
11. If the State has accepted the award of the
Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants,
it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment
to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of
patent discrimination."
C/FA/1714/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
7. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, more particularly, though in the present case, the issue
is with regard to two separate groups of Land Reference
Cases whereas since it clearly appears that there is no
discernible difference between the issues in both the
Reference Cases, at the cost of repetition it being noted that
lands belonging to the same village being acquired for the
very same purpose, the Notification under Section 4 in both
the cases issued near about the same time, there being a
difference of approximately four months in Notification under
Section 6 and whereas, the award of the Land Acquisition
Officer of the very same day, there does not appear to be any
difference between the lands involved in the present cases
and the lands in case of LAR No. 122/2014 and allied matters.
7.1. It also appears, as noted hereinabove, that the highest
claim in LAR No. 122/2014 and allied matters was to the tune
of approximately Rs. Fifteen Lakhs i.e. Rs. 14,92,700/- to be
precise whereas in the instant group of cases, the highest
amount awarded was Rs. 12,33,100/-. As stated by learned
advocate for the respondents, it also appears that there are
alteast seven cases in the present group where the additional
C/FA/1714/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
amount awarded is even less than Rs. One Lakh and as
mentioned hereinabove in LAR No. 128/2014 the additional
amount came to Rs. 4,543/- only.
8. In this view of the matter, in the considered opinion of
this Court, there does not seem to be any justifiable reason
whatsoever for the State to have accepted the award in LAR
Nos. 122-125/2014 whereas, the present group of appeals
concerning LAR Nos. 126-150/2014 have been chosen for
preferring of appeal.
9. In this view of the matter, more particularly, in light of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of
Shivappa (supra), in the considered opinion of this Court, the
present First Appeals are not required to be entertained and
are hereby dismissed in limini. Consequently, the Civil
Applications would also stand disposed of.
10. The compilation tendered by learned advocate Mr. Sheth
is directed to be taken on record of First Appeal No. 1714 of
2023.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
Bhoomi
