Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation ... vs Kanbi Harji Mavaji - Deceased on 17 December, 2025

Author: A.Y. Kogje

Bench: A.Y. Kogje

                                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                             C/FA/4302/2024                                            JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025

                                                                                                                         undefined




                                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                    R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4302 of 2024
                                                                 With
                                                   R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 245 of 2025
                                                                   In
                                                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4302 of 2024
                                                                 With
                                                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3708 of 2019
                                                                 With
                                                   R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 336 of 2023
                                                                   In
                                                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3708 of 2019
                                                                 With
                                                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3618 of 2019
                                                                 With
                                                   R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 334 of 2023
                                                                   In
                                                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3618 of 2019


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE                        Sd/-

                       and

                       HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA         Sd/-
                       =======================================================================
                                  Approved for Reporting              Yes       No

                       =======================================================================
                                       LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OFFICER & ANR.
                                                             Versus
                                              KANBI HARJI MAVAJI - DECEASED & ORS.
                       =======================================================================
                       Appearance:
                       MS POOJA CHAUDHARY and MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGPs for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
                       DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for the
                       Defendant(s) No. 1
                       MR JINESH KAPADIA for MR MAHESH P PATEL(3381) for the Defendant(s) No.
                       1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
                       =======================================================================

                             CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
                                   and
                                   HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

                                                            Date : 17/12/2025

                                                   ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4302/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025

undefined

1. The present appeals and cross objections have been

filed against the common judgment and award dated 29.09.2017

passed by Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa in Land Acquisition

Reference Nos.101, 105 and 106 of 2010, whereby the Judge has

partly allowed the references.

2. The facts in brief are that the land of the original

claimants situated at Village : Lakhani, Taluka : Deesa, District :

Banaskantha, came to be acquired for the public purpose of

Spreading Canal of Sujalam Safalam. Notification under Section 4

of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was issued on 30.06.2004 and

declaration under Section 6 of the Act was made on 05.01.2005 and

the same culminated into the award under Section 11(1) of the Act,

which was made and declared by the Land Acquisition Officer on

04.04.2005. The Land Acquisition Officer by the said award

determined the market value of the land acquired at Rs.8.50/- per

sq.mtrs.

2.1 Being dissatisfied with the said award, the claimants

filed applications for enhancement, and the Reference Court partly

allowed the said matters and has awarded additional compensation

at the rate of Rs.333.50 per square mtr. over and above which has

already been awarded by the Acquisition Officer.

2.2 Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant - State has

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4302/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025

undefined

preferred these appeals and for enhancement of the claim, the

original claimants have filed cross objection.

3. Learned AGP has submitted that a coordinate bench of

this Court has already adjudicated upon the group of First Appeals

and cross objections which are arising from the same village and

the very same acquisition proceedings being, First Appeal No.669

of 2019 and allied matters wherein a CAV judgment dated

18.12.2023 has been passed by this Court.

4. Upon perusal of the record, the Court finds that the

present appeals stand on an identical footing with the aforesaid

group and nothing appears on record so as to take a different view.

5. In paras 14 to 18 of judgment and award dated

18.12.2023 in First Appeal No.669 of 2019 and allied matters, this

Court has observed as under:

"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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4302/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025

undefined

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 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,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4302/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025

undefined

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 theValuation 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 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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4302/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025

undefined

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.

16. We have considered the report of the District Valuation Committee, village : Lakhani dated 20.05.2004 produced on record at Exhs.40 & 41 i.e. as well as the Map of village produced on record. It is found out from the aforesaid documents that the price of the land of land bearing Survey No.152 pk. has been evaluated and fixed at Rs.510/- per sq.mtr. and Sujalam Safalam Canal passes through land bearing Survey Nos.153 & 211 pk. and the said lands are situated adjacent to the land owned by the original claimants. It is also found out from the record that the lands owned by the original claimants are situated within well developed area, which would reduce the expenditure behind the development and, therefore after acquiring the said land, the Government need not have to spend money for its development. Thus considering the above facts of the case on hand, the original claimants are entitled for deduction of 20% instead of 40%, which has been done in the present case.

17. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that we have also gone through the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court including the finding given and conclusion arrived at by the learned Reference Court and found that except deduction of 40% instead of 20%, there is no error committed by the learned Reference Court, which would require

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4302/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025

undefined

interference from this Court. Hence, rest of the impugned judgment and award remain unaltered.

18. Therefore in view of the aforesaid observations made, First Appeals filed by the State of Gujarat are hereby dismissed. Whereas Cross Objections filed by the original claimants are allowed as prayed for. Therefore, the impugned judgment and award dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.26 to 31 of 2005 is hereby modified to the extent that instead of compensation at Rs.333.50, which is already awarded by the Reference Court, the original claimants are entitled to get additional compensation at Rs.160/- per Sq.Mtr i.e. total compensation at Rs.493.50. Rest of the observation and direction would remain unaltered. Decree to be drawn accordingly. Record & Proceedings are sent back forthwith."

6. Accordingly, following the reasoning recorded in the

common CAV judgment dated 18.12.2023, the present appeals filed

by the State are dismissed. The cross objections filed by the

original claimants are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment

and award dated 29.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional

Senior Civil Judge, Deesa in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.101,

105 and 106 of 2010 is hereby modified to the extent that the

compensation at Rs.333.50, which is already awarded by the

Reference Court, the original claimants are entitled to get

additional compensation at Rs.114/- per Sq.Mtr i.e. total

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4302/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/12/2025