Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer (Dy. ... vs Patel Gordhanbhai Ramabhai on 18 June, 2024
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2612/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2612 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2613 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2614 of 2016
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 394 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2612 of 2016
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 392 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2613 of 2016
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 393 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2614 of 2016
==========================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (DY. COLLECTOR) & ANR.
Versus
PATEL GORDHANBHAI RAMABHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ADITYASINH JADEJA, ASST GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR MAHESH P PATEL(3381) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 18/06/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. These appeals are filed by the State challenging the
awards of the Land Acquisition Officers of the respective
dates.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2612/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
2. Essentially, the challenge is on the ground that the
land reference court could not have relied on the interim
report at Exs. 29/33/21 dated 09.03.2000 which awarded
enhanced compensation at the rate of Rs.510/- per sq.
mtr.
3. In light of the decision rendered by the co-ordinate
bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 669 of 2019 of
which paragraphs no. 14 and 15 are reproduced as under,
the compensation awarded to the claimants has to be on
the basis of the valuation report dated 20.05.2004.
"14. We have considered the ratio laid down and the
principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions. It is
found out that the principles governing determination of
market value of lands acquired are well- settled and at
the time of determination of the compensation, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court issued certain directions as
regard the the methods of valuation to be considered i.e.
(1) opinion of experts, (2) the prices paid within a
reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase or
sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to
those acquired and possessing similar advantages and
(3) a number of years' purchase of the actual or
immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired.
Therefore valuation made by the Valuation Committee
can be a valid basis for the Reference Court in deciding
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2612/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
the valuation of the land for the purpose of awarding
compensation, subject to any change in the nature of the
land, character etc. If the impugned judgment and order
of the Reference Court is examined in light of the
aforesaid observations and discussions, it appears to us
that there is no error committed by the Reference Court
in relying upon the price fixed for allotment of the land
for the public purpose of Spreading Canal of Sujalam
Safalam, but the Reference Court has committed error in
not considering the aspect that the valuation as was
made of the land in question on 20.05.2004 and the said
valuation is to be considered, keeping in view the
principles, as observed herein above and the Reference
Court has also totally lost sight of in not considering the
deduction to be made in the nature of the land allotted
for non-agricultural purpose and the acquisition of
agricultural land in the present case.
15. From the facts of the case, as stated above, it is
found out that it is the case of the original claimants that
the Valuation Committee has fixed the valuation of the
Government land on 20.05.2004, whereas the
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on
30.06.2004 i.e. after the fixation of the valuation of the
land by the Valuation Committee and, hence, they are
entitled for additional compensation, for which, reliance
is put upon the decision of this Court in case of Patel
Haribhai Manilal (supra) as well as in case of Amaji
Mohanji Thakore (supra) and though the aforesaid facts
have been pointed out before the Reference Court, it has
not been considered and 40% deduction was made
instead of 20@, which the original claimants are entitled
for. We have gone through the record and proceeding
and found out that the Reference Court has considered
the report dated 20.05.2004 of the Valuation Committee.
It is found out that the Reference Court has correctly
evaluated the the report of the Valuation Committee but
at the time of considering the amount, 40% amount is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2612/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
deducted from the said amount mentioned in the report
solely on the count that in identical matter in case of
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. delivered in First
Appeal Nos.2832 to 2843 of 2006, the Division Bench of
this Court has deducted 40% amount from the price
fixed by the competent authority. It is found out from the
record that in the said matter, the acquired land was
situated in outskirt of the city area, whereas the present
land, which is acquired by the acquiring body, is situated
within the center of the city and as per the evidence led
by the original claimants, surrounding and vicinity area
of the acquired land is well developed area and in future,
the Government need not have to spend any amount for
the development of the said area, therefore, basic price
value of the said land is on higher side, therefore, the
deduction is required to be made 20% instead of 40%.
We have gone through the record and proceedings and
found out that the land, which was acquired by the
acquiring body, is small plot and situated within the
center of the city, therefore, we are of the opinion that
the original claimants are entitled for 20% deduction
instead of 40% deduction."
4. Thereafter, the above decision was followed in a
subsequent decision of this court in First Appeal No. 671
of 2019. In view of the above, the total compensation
therefore in light of the aforesaid appeals, the orders of
which are relied upon, has to be Rs.456/- per sq. mtrs for
the respective acquired lands with all statutory benefits
and interest after adjustment of the amounts already
received by the claimants. Such statutory benefit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2612/2016 ORDER DATED: 18/06/2024
undefined
accrued shall be as per the rate prescribed under Section
28 of the Act. It is further directed that the enhanced
compensation shall be deposited with the Nazir of
concerned Court within period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of this order and on deposit of such
amount, the same is directed to be disburse and paid to
respective claimants on due verification of their identity
by account payee cheque.
5. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed to the aforesaid
extent. The cross objections are allowed to the aforesaid
extent. The impugned award is modified accordingly.
Civil application is accordingly allowed in terms of the
valuation report dated 20.05.2004. The report which is
part of earlier appeals is placed on record. Order
accordingly.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
DIVYA
