[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
General Manager, O N G C vs Girishbhai Mohanlal Patel on 5 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2897/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2897 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2898 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2899 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
GENERAL MANAGER, O N G C
Versus
GIRISHBHAI MOHANLAL PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KJ BRAHMBHATT(202) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS RAJVI SHAH AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 05/12/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeals are filed under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by appellant O.N.G.C. - original
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2897/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
opponent No.2 assailing the judgment and award dated
05.11.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana
in L.A.R. Nos. 3590/2003 to 3592/2003.
2. Heard learned advocate Ms. K. J. Brahmbhatt for the
appellant and learned AGP Ms. Rajvi Shah for the respondent
No.2. Though served, none appears for the respondent No.1.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Special Land
Acquisition Officer issued a notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Act") on 16.02.1999 for the purpose of acquisition of the land
situated at Village Balol, Taluka Mahesana, District Mahesana
as the crude oil was found by the appellant O.N.G.C. from the
internal part of the said land. Hence, for the public purpose
and for the Nation, the said land came to be acquired. A
notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on
17.09.1999. Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award
under Section 11 of the Act on 23.02.2001 by awarding Rs.10/-
per sq. mtr. as compensation. The land owners, being
aggrieved by the said award, filed the reference cases under
Section 18 of the Act. The learned Reference Court, after
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2897/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
considering the evidence, on 05.11.2004, granted the
additional compensation of Rs.57/- per sq. mtr. over and above
the compensation granted by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned
judgment and award dated 05.11.2004, the appellant has filed
the present First Appeals.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant O.N.G.C. -
original opponent No.2 submits that the learned Reference
Court has committed an error by considering the sale deed at
Exh.15, which is of adjoining Village Santhal. It is further
contended that the claimants have produced a decision
rendered in the L.A.R. Nos.2626/1993 to 2652/1993 at Exh.17,
wherein the learned Reference Court has awarded a
compensation of Rs.10.67ps per sq. mtr. over and above Rs.2/-
awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. A notification
under Section 4 of the Act in the said land reference cases was
published on 03.04.1987. It is further contended that though
the learned Reference Court was having an exemplar of the
same Village, the learned Reference Court did not consider the
said decision and wrongly relied upon Exh.17, which is a sale
deed of Village Santhal. It is contended that both the villages
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2897/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
are different and the fertility of both the lands situated in
different villages is different. It is further contended that the
market value of the lands of both the villages cannot be
compared, however the learned Reference Court took into
consideration the sale deed Exh.15 and awarded an
unreasonable compensation.
4.1 Learned advocate appearing for the appellant further
contends that the learned Reference Court has also committed
a grave error in awarding the interest from the date of
issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. It is
contended that factually, the claimants are entitled to the
interest from the date of taking over the possession of the land
in question and not from the date of issuance of notification
under Section 4 of the Act. Learned advocate for the appellant
relies upon Sections 11 and 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is
submitted that Section 16 contemplates power to take
possession by the Collector. The Collector shall be entitled to
take the possession of the land when he makes an award
under Section 11 of the Act. In the present case, the date of
the award under Section 11 of the Act is dated 23.02.2001.
Therefore, the interest ought to have been awarded from
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2897/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
23.02.2001 and not from the date of Notification under Section
4 of the Act. Except above, no other submissions have been
made.
5. Heard the learned advocate for the appellant and
perused the record & proceedings.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised mainly
two fold contentions in the present Appeals. Firstly, with regard
to determination of market value of the land in question and
secondly, the date of entitlement of interest. So far as the
question of market value of the land in question is concerned,
the claimants have relied upon two documents i.e. sale deed
Exh.15 and the decision rendered in L.A.R. Nos. 2626/1993 to
2652/1993 at Exh.17. The claimants have also examined the
vendors of the sale deed Exh.15. The appellant has not
contradicted either the claimant or the witnesses, whose
evidence's recorded at Exh.19. So far as the exemplar of the
sale deed is concerned. So far as the decision in L.A.R. Nos.
2626/1993 to 2652/1993 at Exh.17 is concerned, the date of
notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on
03.04.1987 and the land was acquired for pilot plan. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2897/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
learned Reference Court has awarded an additional
compensation of Rs.8.67 ps. per sq.mtr. (total compensation of
Rs.10.67ps per sq.mtr.). If the sale deed Exh.15 is considered,
the market value of the land would come to Rs.56.47ps per sq.
mtr. While considering the principle of best available exemplar
for determining the market value, the learned Reference Court,
instead of relying upon the Exh.17, relied upon the sale deed
Exh.15. The learned Reference Court has observed that the
distance between the Village Balol and the Village Santhal is
hardly 2 kilometers and the boundaries of both the villages are
one. This observation is coming out from the deposition of the
witness one Patel Jeevabhai Kesabhai, whose evidence is
recorded at Exh.19. The learned Reference Court, therefore,
adopted the best evidence available on record, which can fetch
the best market value of the land which has been acquired.
The learned Reference Court has adopted the proper method
and manner for determining the market value of the land in
question. A decision, which has been relied upon by the
learned advocate for the appellant in the case of General
Manager vs. Jagubhai Khodabhai Patel and anr. passed
in First Appeal No. 4519 of 2009 and connected appeals
decided on 25.07.2025 is not helpful to the contentions of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2897/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
the appellant for the reason that the Coordinate Bench of this
Court, while deciding the appeals of the appellant, has
occasion to consider only the one exemplar i.e. the award
passed in the land reference cases of same Village Balol. The
Coordinate Bench of this Court had only one evidence
available. Whereas, in the present case, the learned Reference
Court had two evidences available on record, i.e. (i) sale
instance and (ii) award passed in other land reference cases.
When the learned Reference Court adopts and accepts the
best evidence in favour of the claimants, the finding on such
evidence determining the market value cannot be disturbed.
The contention that the second view is possible is not a ground
to allow the appeals. Therefore, in my view, the determination
of the market value of the land in question is just and proper.
The second question, which is to be answered, is with
regard to the award of interest. The learned Reference Court,
while passing the award, has awarded the interest to the
claimants from the date of taking over the possession of the
acquired land. It would be apposite to refer to Section 11 and
Section 16 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as under :-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2897/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
"11. Enquiry and award by Collector. - [(1)] On the day so fixed, or
on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the
Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objection (if any) which
any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under
section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the
value of the land [at the date of the publication of the notification
under section 4, sub-section (1)], and into the respective interests
of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award
under his hand of-
(i) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the
land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the
persons known or believed to be interested in the land, or whom, or
of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have
respectively appeared before him :
[Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this
sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate
Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may
authorize in this behalf:
Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate
Government to direct that the Collector may make
such award without such approval in such class of cases as the
appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.
[(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any
stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the
persons interested in the land who appeared before him have
agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the
Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate
Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an
award according to the terms of such agreement.
(3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-
section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of
compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or
elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act,
1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall
be liable to registration under that Act.]"
16. Power to take possession. - When the Collector has made an
award under section 11, he may take possession of the land, which
shall thereupon [vest absolutely in the [Government]], free from all
encumbrances..
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2897/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
7. The Collector may take the possession of the land after
the award under Section 11 of the Act is passed. Before the
award is passed under Section 11 of the Act, the Collector is
not empowered to take the possession of the land in question.
In the present case, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has
passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 23.02.2001
and therefore, in my view, the claimants are entitled to the
interest only from 23.02.2001 and not from the date of the
notification published under Section 4 of the Act. The learned
Reference Court has committed an error of law in awarding the
interest from the date of issuance of notification. Therefore,
the impugned judgment and award is required to be modified
to the extent of award of interest and the claimants are
entitled to interest from 23.02.2001 instead of 16.02.1999.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present
case, the First Appeals are partly allowed. The impugned
judgment and award dated 05.11.2004 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (S.D.), Mehsana in L.A.R. Nos. 3590/2003 to
3592/2003 is modified to the extent that the claimants are
entitled to the interest from the date of taking over the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2897/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/12/2025
undefined
possession of the lands in question. Rest of the judgment and
award shall remain unaltered.
The Record & Proceedings be sent back forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
cmk
