Gujarat High Court
Gujarat Industrial Development ... vs Sauleman Daud Masra Deceased on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1615/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1615 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1616 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4208 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4209 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4210 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4211 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THROUGH
GENERAL
Versus
SAULEMAN DAUD MASRA DECEASED & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINMAY M GANDHI(3979) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS NIKITA C GANDHI(11570) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1
MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 3
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 08/08/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Since all these appeals involve common questions of
law and fact, they are being disposed of through this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1615/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
common judgment.
2. These appeals have been filed by the appellant under
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against
the common judgment and award dated 10.7.2009
passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bharuch,
(hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land
Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1257 of 1990 to 1263 of
1990, whereby the Reference Court has allowed the
references and held present appellant liable to pay
additional amount compensation of Rs. 804 per Are to the
original claimants along with interest and costs.
3. The facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, at the instance of the
acquiring body, published a notification under Section 4
of the Land Acquisition Act on 01.04.1982 for acquiring
the claimants' land situated within the revenue limits of
Village Panoli, Taluka Ankleshwar, District Bharuch. The
notification under Section 6 was published on 15.02.1985,
and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
declared an award on 12.11.1987, awarding
compensation to the tune of Rs. 220/- per Are.
3.1 However, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
said award, the original claimants raised a dispute by
filing Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1257 of 1990
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1615/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
to 1263 of 1990 before the Reference Court.
3.2 The Reference Court, after considering the
submissions advanced by both sides and the facts of the
case, framed the issue below Exhibit 23 and answered it
in paragraph No. 7 of the judgment. Upon examining the
submissions, the documentary record, and the earlier
award passed in Reference Case Nos. 1262 to 1268 of
1993 (Exhibits 33 and 34), the Court allowed the
reference cases and awarded additional compensation of
Rs. 804/- per Are, together with other statutory benefits.
3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court, the
present appellant has preferred this group of first
appeals.
4. Heard Mr. Chinmay Gandhi, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Saiyed, learned counsel for the claimants
and Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned AGP for respondent
No.3.
5. Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant,
contended that the Reference Court, without duly
considering the submissions advanced by present
appellant, passed the award solely on the basis of the
earlier decision in Reference Case Nos. 1262 to 1268 of
1993, produced at Exhibits 33 and 34. He further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1615/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
submitted that no additional evidence or documentary
evidence produced before the Reference Court.
5.1 Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel, further submitted that
the Reference Court, while noting that no additional
documentary evidence had been produced by either side,
merely relied upon and referred to the earlier references,
being Reference Case Nos. 1262 to 1268 of 1993, and
consequently passed the impugned judgment and award.
5.2 Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant,
submitted that the Reference Court committed an error in
relying upon the awards in Land Reference Case Nos. 331
to 338 of 1990, as well as Land Reference Case Nos. 1262
to 1268 of 1993, in which the lands of villages Umarwada
and Sanjali were acquired, which are different villages
from the one involved in the present case. He further
submitted that the learned Reference Court failed to
appreciate that the proximity of villages, by itself, cannot
be the sole criterion and is not always a comparable
factor for the purpose of determining the market value
and awarding just compensation.
5.3 Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant,
submitted that the claimants neither led any evidence nor
produced any sale instances in support of their claim, and
that the burden of proof was upon the claimants to
establish their case by leading cogent evidence. He
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1615/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
further submitted that the Reference Court was not
justified in applying Exhibits 33 and 34 as the basis, as
merely because the boundaries of two villages are
adjoining does not necessarily imply that the market
value of the lands situated in both villages would be
identical, since the market value depends upon various
factors, including the location and nature of the land.
5.4 In view of the above submissions, Mr. Gandhi, learned
counsel for the appellant urges before the Court that
present appeals may be allowed and the impugned
judgment and award passed by the Reference Court may
be set aside.
6. As against that, Mr. Saiyed, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent-claimants, contended that the
Reference Court had considered the earlier award passed
in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 1262 to 1268 of
1993 and passed the impugned judgment and award. He
submitted that, by the said award, the Reference Court
had determined the market value of the acquired land at
Rs.1,067/- per Are. He has also submitted that the copies
of the previous awards passed by the Reference Court, at
Exhibits 33 and 34, were produced on record before the
Reference Court.
6.1 Mr. Saiyed, learned counsel for the claimants
submitted that the Reference Court has not committed
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1615/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
any error in passing the impugned judgment and award.
He has submitted that after evaluating the evidence
placed on record and after hearing both the sides, the
Reference Court has passed the impugned judgment and
award and awarded just and proper compensation in
favour of the claimants.
6.2 Mr. Saiyed, learned Counsel relied upon the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court dated 8.11.2012
passed in First Appeal No.3444 of 2012 to First Appeal
No. 3455 of 2012 as well as decision of Single Judge of
this Court dated 10.10.2013 passed in First Appeal Nos.
2618 of 2013 and allied matters and submitted that in
view of the said decisions, present appeals may be
dismissed.
7. I have carefully perused the documents and materials
placed on record. I have also examined the record and
proceedings, as well as the impugned judgment and
award passed by the Reference Court.
8. It appears that vide judgment dated 8.11.2012 passed
in First Appeal No.3444 of 2012 to First Appeal No.3455
of 2012 the Division Bench of this Court has decided
identical issue pertaining to Land Acquisition Reference
Case Nos. 195 to 204 of 1997 and dismissed the appeals
filed by the appellant.
9. Further, the award passed in Land Reference Case
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1615/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
Nos. 1262 of 1993 to 1268 of 1993 by the Reference
Court was challenged before this Court by the appellant
by preferring First Appeal No. 2618 of 2013 along with a
group of allied appeals. In the said appeals, in paragraph
4 of the judgment, the Coordinate Bench observed that, in
the decision rendered in the group of First Appeals Nos.
3444 of 2012 to 3455 of 2012, arising from Land
Acquisition Reference Nos. 195 of 1997 to 204 of 1997,
the Division Bench of this Court had confirmed the award
passed by the Reference Court and dismissed the appeals
preferred by the appellant. Referring to and relying upon
the deicison of the Division Bench of this Court, the
Coordinate Bench dismissed the appeal preferred by the
present appellant in First Appeal No. 2618 of 2013 and
allied appeals, vide order dated 10.10.2013.
10. Therefore, at this juncture, it does not lie in the
mouth of the appellant to contend that the Court has not
considered the documentary evidence and has passed the
impugned order without there being any cogent or
material evidence.
11. In view of the above, the contention raised by the
learned counsel, Mr. Gandhi, for the appellants, is not
tenable in the eye of law, as the Court has referred to and
relied upon the earlier awards passed by the competent
Reference Court in a group of references.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1615/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
12. When this Court, after considering all the relevant
facts and materials and after referring to and relying
upon the decision of the Division Bench, passed the
judgment dismissing the appeal of the appellant, I am
unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned
counsel, Mr. Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant
that no evidence was produced by the claimants.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion and for the
reasons recorded hereinabove, I find no merit in these
appeals. The appeals are hereby dismissed. The
impugned judgment and award dated 10.7.2009 passed
by the Reference Court in Land Acquisition Reference
Case Nos. 1257 of 1990 to 1263 of 1990, is hereby
confirmed.
14. If the amount is deposited by the appellant and it is
lying with the Reference Court, the same shall be
disbursed in favour of the respondents-original claimants
after following due procedure and after verifying their
bank details through RTGS/NEFT. Record and
proceedings, if received, be sent back to the concerned
reference court forthwith.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
