[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Spl. Land Acq. Officer vs Nileshkumar Kamalnayan Poa Of ... on 1 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3472 of 2011
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 22 of 2012
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3472 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3476 of 2011
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 26 of 2012
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3476 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
SPL. LAND ACQ. OFFICER & ORS.
Versus
NILESHKUMAR KAMALNAYAN POA OF MULJIBHAI LAXMIDAS
================================================================
Appearance:
MS RAJVI SHAH, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 01/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeals are filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by
the appellant-original opponent challenging common judgment
and order dated 27.08.2010 passed in Land Acquisition
Reference Case Nos.1169 to 1185 of 1997 by the Principal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch. The Captioned First Appeals are
arising out of Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.1179 and
1183 of 1997 respectively.
2. Heard learned AGP Ms. Rajvi Shah for the appellants and
learned advocate Mr. P.P. Majmudar for the respondent.
3. Claimants have also filed cross-objections for
enhancement of compensation in the respective First Appeals.
As the captioned First Appeals as well as the captioned Cross-
objections are arising out of the common judgment and award
and the facts in all the matters are also common, therefore, by
this common judgment, First Appeals as well as Cross-
objections are decided together.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
4.1. The Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada Project) Unit
No.7 acquired the lands of village-Bharthana, Taluka & District-
Bharuch for the purpose of Dayadra Distributory Minor B2
Minor Branch Canal. Notification under Section 4 and 6 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
Act were published on 12.09.1994 and 14.12.1995 respectively.
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.667.50/- per Are for
irrigated land as compensation on 26.08.1996. Claimants being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, filed reference cases
under Section 18 of the Act for enhancement of the
compensation. After considering the evidence, learned
Reference Court awarded additional compensation at Rs.98.14/-
per square metres with statutory benefits. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, appellants
have filed the present First Appeals.
5. Learned AGP for the appellants has contended that the
award passed by learned Reference Court is on a higher side. It
is further contended that learned Reference Court without
appreciating the facts and without appreciating the quality and
fertility of the lands and the development of the area, has
awarded compensation. It is further contended that the Special
Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award after taking into
consideration all factors including five years sale instances and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
awarded just and reasonable compensation. Learned Reference
Court, in absence of any cogent and convincing material placed
on record by the claimants, has relied upon judgment passed in
the land acquisition cases of village Zanor. It is further
contended that the exemplar of village Zanor is not a correct
exemplar. Therefore, judgment and order passed by learned
Reference Court be quashed and set aside. Except above, no
other submissions are canvassed by learned AGP for the
appellants.
6. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent-original
claimants contended that the learned Reference Court has taken
into consideration the exemplar of a decision rendered of
adjoining village Zanor. It is further contended that the village
Bharthana and village Zanor are adjoining villages. Claimants
have also produced map of Bharuch-Taluka to substantiate the
fact that both the villages are adjoining villages. It is further
contended that the decision in the case of village Zanor was
assailed by Manager, National Thermal Power Project, Bharuch
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court First Appeal
No.120 of 2011 and allied matters, wherein the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court vide its oral judgment dated
16.10.2025 has modified the determination of the compensation
decided by learned Reference Court. In the said decision, the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has also taken into
consideration the decision dated 23.07.2012 passed in First
Appeal No.1682 of 2012 which pertains to village Bharthana. It
is further contended that since the question of determination of
market price of village Bharthana has been decided by the
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated
23.07.2012, the First Appeals filed by the appellants herein
deserves to be dismissed. Except above, no other submissions
are made by learned advocate for the respondent-original
claimants.
7. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the parties and perused the Record and
Proceedings. The undisputed fact comes out on record that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
lands of the claimants which is situated in village-Bharthana is
acquired by the acquiring body for the purpose of Dayadra
Distributory Minor B2 Minor Branch Canal. Notification under
Section 4 of the Act was published on 12.09.1994. Learned
Reference Court while determining just and fair market price of
the land in question, has relied upon the decision rendered in the
matter pertains to village Zanor at Exhibit-96. Learned
Reference Court has also relied upon the map produced by the
claimants of Taluka-Bharuch which indicates that village
Bharthana and village Zanor are adjoining to each other.
Learned Reference Court has adopted a proper method and
manner in determining the compensation. Moreoever, in the
reference proceedings of the cases pertaining to village Zanor,
wherein the purpose of acquisition was National Thermal Power
Corporation Project and Notification under Section 4 was
issued on 16.10.1990. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
while determining the compensation has fixed market price of
the land in question at Rs.105/- per square metres. It is also
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
found that in First Appeal No.1682 of 2012 and allied matters
which pertains to the same village Bharthana, the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court has awarded additional
compensation at Rs.98/- per square metres. In the case before
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, notification under
Section 4 was published on 09.02.1995 and the purpose of
acquisition was also the same as that of Dayadra Distributory
Minor B2 Minor Branch Canal of Sardar Sarovar Narmada
Nigam Limited. Since the determination of the market price of
the land in question of village Bharthana has been decided by
the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court and as learned AGP
could not point out any contradictory material in not relying
upon the best exemplar for determining just and fair
compensation, I am of the opinion that the appeals of the
appellant lacks merits and the same are required to be dismissed.
8. So far as the cross-objections filed by the claimants are
concerned, learned advocate for the appellants could not point
out any evidence and could not substantiate any convincing
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3472/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 01/12/2025
undefined
reason for enhancement of compensation. As observed
hereinabove, the determination of market price is already been
decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, no
interference is required in the impugned judgment and award.
Resultantly, cross-objections filed by the claimants are
dismissed. First Appeals stand dismissed.
9. Claimants are entitled to additional compensation at Rs.98/-
per square metres with all statutory benefits.
10. The learned trial Court below shall disburse the amount of
compensation in favour of the claimants through RTGS or
NEFT by following the due procedure and identification.
11. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court / Tribunal below.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
