Gujarat High Court
Patel Pranbhai Shamjibhai vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 5 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/637/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 637 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
PATEL PRANBHAI SHAMJIBHAI & ANR.
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KM SHETH(838) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MS KRISHNA DESAI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Defendant(s)
No. 1
MS KJ BRAHMBHATT(202) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 05/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is filed by the appellants - original claimants
under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter be
referred to as "the Act") read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the judgment and award dated
01.01.2010 passed by the learned 3rd Joint District Judge, Mehsana
(hereinafter be referred to as "the Reference Court") in Land
Acquisition Reference No.94 of 2002, whereby the Reference Court
has awarded Rs.47.34 per square meter, over-and-above the amount
awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer which comes
Rs.71.34 per square meter.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/637/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
2. For the purpose of Project of ONGC, Ahmedabad Project Well
No.IJ.L-5, the State Government acquired the lands of the appellants -
original claimants situated at Village: Adraj, Taluka: Kadi, District:
Mehsana. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act
(hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") dated 25.01.2000 has been
issued and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on
12.12.2000. An amount of Rs.150/- per square meter has been
demanded by the appellants, but the Special Land Acquisition Officer
awarded Rs.24/- per square meter by passing an award dated
30.05.2002.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellants - original claimants, preferred
the aforesaid LAR Case under Section 18 of the Act for additional
compensation of Rs.150/- per square meter. However, the judgment
and award dated 01.01.2010 came to be passed by the learned 3 rd
Joint District Judge, Mehsana. This has aggrieved the appellants, have
preferred the present appeal raising various grounds.
4. Heard Mr.K. M. Sheth, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants, Ms.Krishna Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1 and Ms.K.J. Brahmbhatt, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
5. Mr.Sheth, learned counsel has submitted the same facts which
are narrated in the memo of appeals. He has relied upon the order of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in group of First Appeals
being First Appeal No.4044 of 2009 and allied matters decided on
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/637/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
18.03.2024 pertaining to same village Medadraj where lands were
acquired by the State for the same project of ONGC. He has further
submitted that in the said matter notification under Section 4 was
issued on 21.04.1999 and in the present case, notification under
Section 4 was issued on 25.01.2000, so there was a gap of only nine
months in issuance of both the notifications. He has further submitted
that in the said matter, this Court has assessed the market value at
Rs.75/- referring to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
case of Group General Manager vs. Govindbhai Nanjibhai Patel passed
in First Appeal No.288 of 2010 and thus, learned advocate Mr.Sheth
has urged that considering the same, the appellant is entitled for 10%
rise, i.e. Rs.7.50/- per sq. mtr. and adding the same, total amount
comes to Rs.82.50/- (Rs.75/- + Rs.7.50/-) per sq. mtr. Mr.Sheth,
learned counsel has submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts, the
appeals deserve to be allowed and the award of compensation
deserves to be enhanced.
6. Per contra, Ms.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 having reservation submitted that considering 10%
rise, the amount comes to Rs.5.70 and not Rs.7.50 as contended by
the learned counsel for the appellant as there was gap of 10 months
and not 9 months in issuance of both the notifications and thus, final
amount would come to Rs.80.70/- (Rs.75/- + Rs.5.70/-) per sq. mtr.,
and not Rs.82.50/-. However, Ms.Brahmbhatt, learned counsel is
unable to controvert the fact which is observed by this Court in First
Appeal No.4044 of 2009 and allied matters and the amount of
compensation awarded by this Court.
7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/637/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/08/2025
undefined
counsel appearing for the respective parties and the decision of this
Court in First Appeal No.4044 of 2009 and allied matters and relying
upon the said decision in the matter of very same village Medadraj,
this Court has allowed the appeals preferred by the original claimants
being First Appeal Nos.465 of 2010 and 466 of 2010. Considering all
these aspects, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal requires
consideration and the impugned judgment and award deserves to be
modified to the extent that the appellants are entitled for 10%
increase in the amount awarded by the Reference Court.
8. Resultantly, following final order is passed:-
The first appeal is hereby allowed. The appellants - claimants
shall be entitled to get Rs.82.50/- per square meter instead of
Rs.71.34 per square meter as awarded by the Reference Court,
Mehsana. The respondent shall deposit additional amount of
compensation with statutory benefits before the Reference Court
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
On deposit of the amount, the same shall be disbursed in favour of
each claimant, through RTGS / NEFT and the bank account details
shall be furnished by the counsel for the claimants to the Registry of
the Reference Court, Mehsana. Other observations of the Reference
Court for statutory benefits provided under the Act remain intact.
Decree be drawn accordingly. Record and proceedings be sent back
to the concerned Reference Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
