Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Nitinbhai Naginbhai Patel- Heir ... on 27 April, 2023
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
C/FA/3034/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3034 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL Sd/-
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? NO
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
NO
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution NO
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & 1 other(s)
Versus
NITINBHAI NAGINBHAI PATEL- HEIR OF RAMSANG SAMALA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR KM SHETH(838) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 27/04/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
C/FA/3034/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2023
1. Heard learned AGP Ms.Roshni Patel for the appellant State and learned
Advocate Mr.K. M. Sheth for the respondent - claimant.
2. By way of this appeal, the appellant has challenged the common judgement
and award dated 10.7.2012 passed by the learned Reference Court being
learned Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Bharuch in LAR Nos.497 to 514 of 2010
(main LAR No.497/2010), the present appeal pertains to LAR No.506/2010.
3. At the outset, the learned Advocate Mr.Sheth appearing on behalf of the
respondent - claimant would raise an objection with regard to considering the
First Appeal on its merits. Learned Advocate would submit that as such, the
impugned judgement and award was passed in a common group of 18 LAR
cases and whereas according to the learned Advocate, insofar as 15 of the 18
LARs, the appellant State either did not file any appeal or having filed
appeals, have not contested the same more particularly since, as per the policy
of the State Government, any amount awarded less than Rs.5,00,000/- would
be treated as a petty claim, against which no appeal is required to be filed.
Learned Advocate Mr.Sheth would submit that insofar as the present LAR is
concerned, the additional amount awarded was Rs.5,40,935.80 and whereas
according to the learned Advocate, since the additional amount awarded was
exceeding the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by Rs.40,935.80, the present appeal
has been filed. Learned Advocate Mr.Sheth would further submit that the
State having taken a decision either not to file an appeal or having filed an
appeal, but not to contest the same in 15 other LAR Cases of the very selfsame
group, the State Government may not be permitted to adopt a policy of pick
and choose.
4. Learned Advocate Mr.Sheth would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in case of Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer & Ors.,
in Civil Appeal Nos.2694-2700 of 2023, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had
C/FA/3034/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2023
inter alia observed that in a similar situation, where group of appeals were
preferred against a common judgement and award, and whereas the State
Government had withdrawn some of the appeals, therefore, the State
Government could not be permitted to contest the other appeals. Relevant
observations at paragraphs 9 to 11 are reproduced herein below for benefits:-
"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
8.3.2016 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."
5. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, since the appellant
does not dispute the fact that the appellant either, after having preferred
appeals in 15 of the 18 LAR Cases, had withdrawn some of them as the claim
as per the Circular was petty claim and thereafter, merely on account of the
fact that the additional amount awarded to the present claimant exceeds the
cut-off for a petty claim, the State would not be permitted to question the
same, more particularly since the State has accepted the very same award of
the learned Reference Court with regard to other claimants. As observed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court, such an attitude would smack of patent
discrimination and cannot be countenanced.
C/FA/3034/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/04/2023
6. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in view of
the facts narrated herein above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the
present First Appeals may not be permitted to be contested and is hereby
disposed of as rejected.
Sd/-
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
V.V.P. PODUVAL
