Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Patel Kalpnaben Ishwarbhai on 24 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 896 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 899 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 900 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1089 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3295 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1080 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1126 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1127 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1128 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1129 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1303 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1304 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1305 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
PATEL KALPNABEN ISHWARBHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SHIVAM DIXIT, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 IN FIRST APPEAL
Page 1 of 37
Uploaded by SUYASH KUMAR SRIVASTVA(HC01570) on Tue Mar 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 07 23:35:09 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
NOS. 899, 1089, 1080, 1127, 1129, 1303 AND 1305 OF 2020
MR. ANKUR KIRI FOR MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR. MANOHAR RAHEVAR, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 IN FIRST
APPEAL NOS.3295 OF 2018, 896 of 2020, 900 of 2020, 1126 OF 2020,
1128 OF 2020, 1130 OF 2020 AND 1304 OF 2020
MR. ANKUR KIRI FOR MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 24/02/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. All these matters are notified in the cause list at different serial
numbers. However, noticing the common questions of law being
involved and arising out of group of land reference cases being Land
Reference Case Nos.6 of 2012 to 10 of 2012, 12 of 2012 and 14 of
2012 to 16 of 2012 decided by the common judgment and award
dated 18.07.2016 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Vijapur, the matters are heard together and decided by this common
judgment.
2. In order to appreciate the facts of each of the case, the relevant
dates of Notification are discussed as under:
FACTS OF R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3295 of 2018:
3. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the State under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act of
1894") read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the common judgment and
award dated 18.07.2016 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Vijapur in Land Reference Case No. 12 of 2012 (henceforth,
"the impugned judgment and award").
4. By the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, which was
decided with the cognate Land Reference Case Nos.6 of 2012 to 10 of
2012, 12 of 2012 and 14 of 2012 to 16 of 2012(main Land Reference
Case No.12 of 2012), the learned Judge has partly allowed the
reference, thereby holding the respondent-original claimants entitled
to additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.486.33/-
(Rs.495.83/- - Rs.9.50/- = Rs.486.33-/ per sq. mtrs) for the acquired
lands. In addition to the market value of the acquired lands, the
original claimants are also held entitled to get the amount of solatium
at the rate of 30% of the market value. In addition to the market value
of their acquired lands, the Reference Court has also held the original
claimants entitled to the amount payable under Section 23 (1A) of the
amended Land Acquisition Act on the market value of their acquired
lands at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 till the date of the award i.e.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
from 19.12.2007 to 09.06.2009 for period of one year and five months
and twenty one days.
4.1 The Reference Court has also held the claimants entitled to get
interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894, on amount of additional
compensation payable to them at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of taking possession of the acquired lands till expiry of the
period of one year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the
subsequent year till the date of depositing the amount of additional
compensation awarded by the Reference Court to each of the
claimants. The Reference Court has further clarified that the amount
of compensation which is already paid by the Land Acquisition Officer
to the claimants, is directed to be deducted from the amount of
compensation determined by the Reference Court. The appellants-
original opponents have been directed to pay proportionate cost to
the respective claimants of land reference cases as well as to bear its
own cost.
4.2 The close examination of the record reveals that the original
claimants are the interested parties/ land owners of the respective
acquired lands of village-Jantral, Taluka- Vijapur, District-Mehsana.
The lands were proposed to be acquired for the public purpose for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
construction of Radhupura Approach Road. The notification in this
regard was issued under Section 4 of the Act of 1894, which was
published in a Government Gazette on 19.03.2009 and the final public
notice under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894, was published on
11.05.2009. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6 of the Act of
1894 was published in Government Gazette on 03.11.2009 and the
final public notice under Section 6 of the Act was published on
14.12.2009. The Special Land Acquisition Officer appointed in this
regard, had proceeded to determine the market value of the lands
acquired by issuing necessary notice under Section 9 of the Act of
1894. After considering the objections raised by the interested
person, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to pass an
award determining the market value of the lands acquired at the rate
of Rs.9.50/- per sq. mtrs. with 30% solatium and 12% interest from the
date of publishing notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
4.3 The original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid amount of determination of market value of their lands
acquired on lower side, had moved in reference before the Special
Land Acquisition Officer seeking compensation at the rate of Rs.500/-
per sq. mtrs. The reference was presented before the court of learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur on 01.10.2011, which were
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
registered as Land Reference Case Nos.6 of 2012 to 10 of 2012 and 12
of 2012 and 14 of 2012 to 16 of 2012. The aforesaid land reference
cases were consolidated to be heard together pursuant to the order
passed by the learned Judge, whereby the Land Reference Case No.12
of 2012 was treated as the main land reference case. The common
evidences were led by the respective claimants. Essentially, the oral
evidence of one of the claimants namely Patel Amrutbhai Mithabhai
had come on record at Exh.18. Apart from the aforesaid oral evidence,
the following documentary evidences were led on behalf of the
claimants:
"Documentary Evidence of Applicant :-
Exh-33 Certified copy of the Judgment of L.A.R.
Case No.24/2008.
Exh.19 Certificate issued by Talati, Jantral.
Exh.20 Report of District Valuation Committee of
Village Jantral
Exh.21 Report of District Valuation Committee of
Village Kharod.
Exh.22 Certified copy of Map.
4.4 On the other hand, the respondent-State Authorities has
tendered their written statement at Exh.10 disputing the averments
made in the reference. The State has examined one Shri. Asari Kantilal
Dhanjibhai at Exh.28. No other documentary evidence has been
brought on record by the respondent-State Authorities.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
4.5 Considering the closing pursis filed on behalf of the claimant at
Exh.26 and on behalf of the respondent-State Authorities at Exh.29,
the Reference Court had proceeded to decide the reference. The
written arguments tendered by the respective parties were perused
by the learned Judge. Upon overall appreciation of the evidence
brought on record, the learned Judge had accepted the District Land
Valuation Committee Report produced on record at Exh.20 and Exh.21
dated 21.02.2005 and 09.11.2011 respectively at the instance of the
original claimants. However, the learned Judge noticing the fact that
the District Land Valuation Committee Report pertains to the same
village of the acquired lands, has accepted the aforesaid report i.e.
Exh.20 dated 21.02.2005 of village- Jantral to be the best exemplar
available on record, considering the principles laid down by this Court
in the case of State Of Gujarat Through Spl. Land Acquisition
Officer & Others Vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore reported in 2010 (30)
GLH 447, proceeded to decide the additional amount of
compensation based on the District Land Valuation Committee
Report. The learned Judge further noticing the fact that District Land
Valuation Committee Report was in respect of non-agricultural land,
after applying the principle laid down in the case of State Of Gujarat
Through Spl. Land Acquisition Officer & Others (supra), had
deducted 30% of the base price of the non-agricultural land as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
determined by the District Land Valuation Committee i.e. Rs.150/- per
sq. mtrs and after deducing the aforesaid amount from the base price
i.e. (Rs.500/- Rs.150/ -) = Rs.350/- per sq. mtrs. was considered the
market value in case of agricultural land as on 21.02.2005 to be the
base price.
4.6 The learned Judge, had thereafter, examined the issue of
proximity of time line, and had noticed that the notification under
Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 in the present case was issued on
11.05.2009 i.e. after 4 years and 2 months from the date of District
Land Valuation Committee Report dated 21.02.2005. Accordingly, the
learned Judge has applied 10% rise in order to appreciate the
adequate value of the acquired agricultural lands. The learned Judge
had determined an amount of Rs.145.83/- to be proximate market
value of the acquired agricultural lands 4 years and 2 months is equal
to Rs.145.83/- (Rs.350/- X 10% X 4 years and 2 months i.e. Rs.350/- X
10X 50 months / 100 X 12= Rs. 145.83/-) . Thus, the total valuation of
the acquired agricultural land was determined as Rs.495.83/- per sq.
mtrs i.e. (Rs.350/- + 145.83/-) as the market price of the acquired lands
on the date of notification. The learned Judge had further awarded
the statutory benefits envisaged under the Act of 1894 on the
aforesaid additional amount of compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
4.7 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
determination of the additional amount of compensation in the case
of the lands acquired of village by virtue of notification issued under
Section 4 of the Act of 1894 dated 11.05.2009, the State has
approached in appeal.
FACTS OF R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1126 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1127
of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1128 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1129
of 2020 AND R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1130 of 2020:
5. Learned AGP Mr. Manohar Rahevar is directed to carry out the
relevant amendments in the prayer clause forthwith.
6. The present appeals are filed at the instance of the State under
Section 54 of the Act of 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, challenging the common judgment and award dated
28.04.2017 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur in
Land Reference Case No.8 of 2014 to 12 of 2014 (main Land Reference
Case No.8 of 2014) whereby the learned Judge was pleased to partly
allow the reference cases, preferred at the instance of the
respondents-original claimants under Section 18 of the Act of 1894.
6.1 By the said impugned judgment and award, the Reference Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
has held the present respondents-original claimants entitled to
additional amount of compensation of Rs.552.53/- per sq. mtrs.
(Rs.587.53/- - Rs.35/-) for the acquired irrigated lands and Rs.564.53/-
(Rs.587.53/- - Rs.23.00/-) for acquired non-irrigated lands. The
Reference Court has also held the original claimants entitled to get an
amount of solatium at the rate of 30% of the market value. The
claimants are also held entitled to the amount payable under Section
23 (1-A) of the amended Land Acquisition Act on the market value of
their acquired lands at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act, till the date of the award.
The original claimants are also held entitled to get interest under
Section 28 of the Act of 1894 on the amount of additional
compensation payable to them at the rate of 9% per annum from the
date of taking possession of the acquired lands, till the expiry of
period of one year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the
subsequent year till the date of depositing the amount of additional
compensation awarded by the Reference Court to each of the
claimants. The Reference Court has also directed the Land Acquisition
Officer to deduct the amount of compensation already paid to the
respective claimants while determining the amount of compensation
to be paid. The respondent-State Authorities have been directed to
pay to the claimants the proportionate costs as well as to bear their
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
own cost.
7. From the record, it transpires that aforesaid land reference
cases deal with the acquisition of the various parcels of agricultural
lands of the ownership of respective claimants situated in village
Jantral, Taluka-Vijapuar, District-Mehsana for the same public purpose
i.e. for Dharoi Canal. The notification in this regard under Section 4 of
the Act of 1894 was published by the State on 07.03.2011 and a final
public notice in this regard under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 was
published on 19.03.2011. Thereafter, the notification under Section 6
of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on 28.05.2012
and the final public notice in this regard was issued under Section 6 of
the Act of 1894 on 28.05.2012. The necessary proceedings were
initiated by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of
determination of market value by issuing notices to the respective
interested persons/land owners under Section 9 of the Act of 1894.
After considering their objections and upon hearing them, the Special
Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market value at the rate
of Rs.35.00/- per sq. mtrs for irrigated lands and Rs.23.00/- for non-
irrigated lands vide award dated 26.06.2013 passed under Section 11
of the Act of 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had also
awarded solatium at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 12%
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
from the date of publishing the notification under Section 4 of the
Act of 1894.
8. The original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid determination of market value on the lower side, had
approached in reference before the Special Land Acquisition Officer
under Section 18 of the Act of 1894, thereby seeking additional
amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/- per sq. mtrs. The
aforesaid land reference cases were presented before the court of
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur on 06.01.2014, which were
registered as Land Reference Case Nos.8 of 2014 to 12 of 2014 (main
Land Reference Case No.8 of 2014). The aforesaid land reference
cases were consolidated and were decided by the impugned common
judgment and award passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Vijapur. Before the Reference Court, the original claimants were
permitted to led common evidence. Essentially, two witnesses namely
Patel Ashokbhai Haribhai one of the claimants and one of witnesses of
the applicant namely Vinodkumar Ravishankar Joshi have deposed
before the Reference Court at Exh.21 and Exh.24. Apart from the
aforesaid oral evidence, the original claimants have also led
documentary evidence on record, which are as under:
"DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF APPLICANT
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
Exh.12 to 18 Copy of Form No.12 of Acquired Land
Exh.19 Copy of map of village Jantral
Exh.20 Copy of the report of District Evaluation
Committee
Exh.36 Certified copy of Judgment of this Court,
of 2012 and 14 of 2012 to 16 of 2012
9. As against the aforesaid evidence led by the original claimants,
the respondent-State Authorities has examined one Mr. K.S. Modi,
Deputy Collector of District-Himmatnagar at Exh.32. No other
documentary evidence has been led by the State Authorities.
Considering the closing pursis tendered at Exh.25, by the original
claimants and Exh.33 by the State Authorities, the learned Judge has
proceeded to final adjudication of reference cases. Considering the
written argument tendered at Exh.37 produced on record by the
respective claimants and in light of the judgment passed by the
Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.6 of 2012 and allied
matters, which was produced on record at Exh.36, treated it as the
best exemplar available for the purpose of determination of the
additional amount of compensation. The learned Judge, upon close
examination of the aforesaid exemplar, noticed that by the common
judgment and award passed in the aforesaid group of land reference
cases being Land Reference Case No.6 of 2012 and allied matters, the
Reference Court has determined the market value of the acquired
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
lands of same village i.e. of village-Jantral at the rate of 495.83/- per
sq. mtrs. After considering the examination-in-chief of the witness
namely Patel Ashokbhai Haribhai examined by the State Authorities
and upon perusing the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer at Exh.31, in light of the aforesaid exemplar available, the
Reference Court, thereafter, had arrived at a conclusion that the
amount of compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer was not fair and adequate. The Reference Court, therefore,
proceeded to consider essentially two issues i.e. the proximity of the
time line and proximity of the situation of the lands acquired. The
learned Judge noticed that in the present case, the notification issued
under Section 4(1) of the Act was published on 19.03.2011 i.e.
approximately 1 year 10 months days, after the final notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act of 1894 in the case of group of Land
Reference Case Nos.6 of 2012 and allied matters. Thus, considering
the fact that now the lands acquired of same village and the
comparative dates of Section 4 notification by applying 10% rise, the
Reference Court has determined the valuation of the acquired lands in
the present case at the rate of Rs.587.53/- (Rs.495.85/- + Rs91.70-/).
The Reference Court has further awarded the consequential benefits
on such additional amount of Compensation as envisaged under
Section 23(1A) and the interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
10. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
determination of additional amount of compensation, the State
Authorities have approached in appeal under Section 54 of the Act of
1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
FACTS OF FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2020, 899 OF 2020, 900 OF
2020, FIRST APPEAL NO. 1089 OF 2020, FIRST APPEAL NO.1080 OF
2020 AND FIRST APPEAL NOS.1303 TO 1305 OF 2020
11. The present appeals are filed at the instance of State under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act of
1894"), read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
challenging the common judgment and award dated 20.06.2017
passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur in Land
Reference Case Nos.151 of 2015 to 163 of 2015 (main Land Reference
Case No.151 of 2015), whereby the learned Judge has partly allowed
the aforesaid land reference cases holding the present respondents-
original claimants entitled to additional amount of compensation at
the rate of Rs.555.73/- per sq. mtrs (Rs.586.73/- Rs.31/-) for the
acquired lands. The learned Judge has also held the original claimants
entitled to the amount of solatium at the rate of 30% of the market
value. In addition thereto, the original claimants are also held entitled
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
to get amount payable under Section 23(1A) of the amended Land
Acquisition Act on the market value of their acquired lands at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of notification under Section 4 of the
Act till the date of the award. The Reference Court has also awarded
interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894 on additional amount of
compensation payable to the claimants at the rate of 9% per annum
from the date of taking possession of the acquired lands till the expiry
of period of one year and at the rate of 15% per annum for the
subsequent year till the date of depositing the amount of additional
compensation awarded to them. The Reference Court has further
directed the Land Acquisition Officer to deduct the amount of
compensation already paid from the aforesaid amount determined by
the court. The State Authorities are directed to bear the
proportionate cost awarded to the claimants as well as to bear their
own cost.
11.1 The close examination of the record of the aforesaid land
reference cases indicates that the original claimants are the affected
land owners of the acquired agricultural lands situated in village-
Sardarpur, Taluka- Vijapur, District-Mehsana. Their lands were
acquired for the public purpose i.e. for construction of Dharoi Canal.
The Notification in this regard was issued under Section 4 of the Act of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
1894, which was published on 25.03.2011, followed by a final public
notice issued under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 on 29.06.2012. The
Special Land Acquisition Officer had initiated proceedings under
Section 9 of the Act of 1894 for the purpose of determination of the
market value of the acquired lands. After considering the objections
raised by the affected land owners/interested parties, the award
under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was passed on 06.12.2013,
whereby the Special Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to
determine the market value at the rate of Rs.31/- per sq. mtrs along
with 30% solatium and 12% interest from the date of publishing
notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894.
11.2 The affected land owners being aggrieved and dissatisfied with
the determination of market value of their acquired lands on the
lower side, had approached the Special Land Acquisition Officer by
submitting the reference under Section 18 of Act of 1894. Before the
Special Land Acquisition Officer, the aforesaid reference cases were
placed for consideration before the Court of learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Vijapur on 15.09.2014. The aforesaid reference cases were
registered on 16.09.2014 as Land Reference Case No.151 of 2015 to
163 of 2015 (main Land Reference Case No.151 of 2015). The
aforesaid land reference cases were consolidated and were decided by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
the common judgment and award, which are under challenge in the
present appeals.
11.3 By the aforesaid reference, the original claimant had prayed for
additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.1000/-per sq.
mtrs. The reliance was placed on the following evidences led on behalf
of the original claimants:
"ORAL EVIDENCE OF APPLICANT :-
Exh -12 Affidavit of Patel Mathurbhai Govindbhai.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF APPLICANT: -
Exh.13 to Certificate of Talati-cum-Mantri Sardarpur
24 Gram Panchayat. In respect of acquired
land of the case which are having irrigation
facility.
Exh.25 Map of village Sardarpur
Exh.26 Copy of order in L.A.R. No.6/12 to 10/12
Exh.27 Notes of District Land Evaluation
Committee Mahesana dated 21/02/2005
11.4 As against the aforesaid evidences led by the original
claimants, the State Authorities have examined Mr. K.S. Modi, Special
Land Acquisition Officer & .Deputy Collector, Mehsana as their witness
at Exh.32. No other documentary evidences were led by State
Authorities, considering the closing pursis tendered by the original
claimant at Exh.28 and Exh.34 by the State Authorities, the Reference
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
Court had proceeded to decide the additional amount of
compensation. Upon overall appreciation of the evidence brought on
record, the Reference Court has treated the copy of the order passed
by the Reference Court in Land Reference Case No.6 of 2012 to 10 of
2012 as the best exemplar available on record (Exh.26) for the
purpose of determination of the additional amount of compensation
of acquired lands
11.5 The learned Judge, upon close examination of
examination-in-chief, affidavit of the witness, in light of the judgment
produced on record at Exh.26, noticed that the final notification under
Section 4 of the Act was published on 25.03.2011. The learned Judge,
upon perusal of the map produced on record at Exh.25, noticed that
the village-Jantral shares the common boundary with village-
Sardarpur. It was also noticed that for the same public purpose, the
lands were acquired and hence, the learned Judge, after considering
the proximity in time line, and by impugned judgment and award, has
determined the additional amount of compensation at the rate of
Rs.555.73 per sq. mtrs. (Rs.586.7/- -Rs.31/-) for the acquired lands
followed by consequential benefits envisaged under the provisions of
Section 23 (1A) and the interest under Section 28 of the Act of 1894.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
award, the State has approached in appeal under Section 54 of the Act
of 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
12. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleaders Mr. Shivam Dixit
and Mr. Manohar Rahevar for and on behalf of appellants-State
Authorities and learned advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati with learned
advocate Mr. Ankur Kiri have appeared for the respondents-original
claimants.
13. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati appearing for
the respondents-claimants has placed on record the aforesaid details
as borne out from the record by determining the brief submissions.
The same is permitted to be taken upon record.
13.1 The attention of this Court was invited by learned advocate for
the respondents-claimants to the fact that in case of village- Jantral,
more particularly, in group of Land Reference Case Nos.6 of 2012 to
10 of 2012 and allied matters, in all there were 9 reference cases
registered before the Reference Court. It was further pointed out that
out of the aforesaid 9 reference cases, the State has accepted the
common impugned judgment and award in case of 7 reference cases
except for Land Reference Case Nos.12 of 2012 and 14 of 2012, which
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
is under challenge in the present First Appeal being First Appeal Nos.
3295 of 2018 and 3302 of 2018. It was further pointed out that First
Appeal No. 3302 of 2018 is not notified along with the present
appeals. Learned advocate had, thereafter, invited my attention to the
findings and the reasons assigned by the Reference Court in all
aforesaid three group of set of appeals. According to learned
advocate, the base price in case of First Appeal No.3295 of 2018 if is
examined at the outset, the outcome of the First Appeal No. 3295 of
2018 would have bearing insofar as rest of the appeals are concerned.
Before inviting my attention to the merits of First Appeal No.3295 of
2018, learned advocate had placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivappa Etc. Versus The Chief
Engineer And Others reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312, to contend
that the State and its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt
an attitude of pick and choose and discriminate between the similarly
situated claimants by accepting the award in case of few reference
cases, challenging the common judgment and award. Learned
advocate had, therefore, urged before this Court not to entertain the
appeal only of the aforesaid ground.
13.2 By making aforesaid submissions, learned advocate had
also addressed this Court on merits of the case to satisfy as to why,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
the appeals preferred at the instance of the State, do not deserve
consideration. While inviting my attention to the findings and the
reasons assigned by the Reference Court in First Appeal No.3295 of
2018, learned advocate had placed on record the copy of the District
Land Valuation Committee Report dated 21.02.2005, as relied upon by
the Reference Court and produced on record at the instance of the
original claimants at Exh.20. While referring to the aforesaid evidence,
learned advocate had further pointed out that it is apparent from the
report itself that the aforesaid decision has been taken by the
Committee headed by the Collector, it was a land allotted for
construction of two floor houses situated in village -Jantral, Taluka-
Vijapuar, District- Mehsana. By referring to the aforesaid evidence,
learned advocate had submitted that in respect of same village
though in case of non-agricultural land and for non agricultural
purpose, the State Authorities have allotted such land at the rate of
Rs.500/- per sq. mtrs. It was further pointed out that no other
instances have been brought on record either at the instance of the
original claimants or at the instance of State Authorities in the
aforesaid reference cases. In such circumstances, noticing the fact that
the instances of the same village were made available on record, the
learned Judge had proceeded to determine the additional amount of
compensation by taking into consideration the aforesaid sale instance
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
to be the best exemplar available. It was submitted that noticing the
nature of lands as well as the proximity of the distance and other
criterias including the smallness of the plot as against the acquired
lands, the Reference Court has striked down a balance by determining
the additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.486.33/- per
sq. mtrs. of a required agricultural land. He has, therefore, submitted
that no error can be attributed to the approach of learned Judge in
treating the best exemplar and the deduction applied. According to
him, the additional amount of compensation determined by the
Reference Court, is just adequate, which calls for no interference in
the present appeal.
14. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manohar
Rahevar appearing for the appellants-State Authorities has
vehemently objected to the aforesaid submissions of the learned
advocate for the respondents- original claimants. The attention of this
Court was invited to the schedule of the amount of compensation
appended with the impugned judgment and award, to point out that it
was only in case of the pity claims, the State has chosen not to move in
appeals. He has, therefore, submitted that looking to the State
Litigation Policy, the wisdom had prevailed on the department not to
proceed in appeals against those claims. The aforesaid approach of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
the State Authorities cannot be treated to be an arbitrary approach.
He has, therefore, submitted that the decision relied upon by the
learned advocate for the respondents- original claimants may not be
made applicable in the facts of the case.
14.1 On the merits of the case, learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Manohar Rahevar had invited my attention to the findings
and the reasons assigned by the Reference Court. The learned
Assistant Government Pleader had further submitted that while
considering the District Land Valuation Committee Report to be the
best exemplar, the learned Judge has not broadly examined the
relevant factors, which were otherwise required to be taken into
consideration for the purpose of additional amount of compensation
before treating it as the best comparable instance available on record.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3295 of
2018:
15. Noticing the aforesaid submissions of learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties, this Court had called upon the
learned Assistant Government Pleader to point out, as to whether any
other exemplar is required to be examined by this Court in the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
appeals as against the exemplar produced on record at Exh. 20 by the
original claimants.This Court had also gone through the grounds
raised in the appeal memo, to find out as to whether any other
instance, the State intends to rely upon. Learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr. Manohar Rahevar had failed to bring on
record any other instance for the comparison of market value of the
lands acquired. In such circumstances, the only exemplar, which is
made available for the purpose of determination of market value, is
the District Land Valuation Committee Report dated 21.02.2005,
which is produced on record at Exh. 20. This brings me to the approach
of the learned Judge as regards the deduction applied to determine
the true market value of the lands acquired. The Reference Court has
followed the decision in the case of Amaji Mohanji Thakore (supra)
reported in 2010 (3) G.L.H. 447, whereby the Hon'ble Division Bench
of this Court had treated the report of Valuation Committee, which
comprises of expert body in the field of valuation including the
District Collector himself, Town Planning Authority etc. to be a reliable
source for the purpose of determination of market value of nearby
acquired lands. In the aforesaid decision also, the comparison of sale
instances of the agricultural lands was made against the non-
agricultural lands. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had
applied 30% deduction as against the price of non- agricultural land
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
for the purpose of determination of market value of the acquired
agricultural lands. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court had also
taken into consideration the well settled legal principles laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ravinder Narain And Anr.
vs Union of India reported in 2003 (4) SCC 481, whereby even in case
of determination of compensation for a large area, the Court held
that the rate fixed for small plot can also be taken into consideration
when there is absence of other material evidence. The Hon'ble
Division Bench has followed the legal principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Chand vs Union Of India &
Anr reported in 2009 (15) SCC 769, wherein in para 44, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that the estimation of market value by such
statutorily constituted expert committee, as expert evidence can form
the basis for the purpose of determination of the market value in land
acquisition cases, to be treated as a relevant piece of evidence
16. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court finds
no error of fact of law in the impugned judgment and award passed by
the Reference Court determining the additional amount of
compensation of the acquired agricultural lands at the rate of Rs.
486.33/- per sq. mtrs.
17. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal stands dismissed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1126 of
2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1127 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO.
1128 of 2020, R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1129 of 2020 AND R/FIRST
APPEAL NO. 1130 of 2020:
18. Having uphold the judgment and award dated 18.07.2016
passed in Land Reference Case Nos. 6 of 2012 and allied matters
passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijapur in First Appeal
No.3295 of 2018, in the present appeals, indisputably the reliance is
placed on the aforesaid common judgment and award passed by the
Reference Court. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manohar
Rahevar appearing for the appellants-State Authorities has invited my
attention to the fact that the public purpose in case of aforesaid
group of appeals, was for construction of Dharoi Canal, whereas in the
Land Reference Case Nos.6 to 10 of 2012 and allied matters, the lands
were acquired for the purpose of construction of Radhupura Approach
Road. He has, therefore, urged this Court to take into consideration
the aforesaid aspect before applying the judgment as uphold by this
Court in First Appeal No. 3295 of 2018, in the present group of
appeals.
19. Considering the aforesaid submissions, this Court had called
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
upon the learned Assistant Government Pleader to point out the
expenses, if any, being incurred by the State Authorities to justify
their grounds raised in the present appeals. This Court is conscious of
the legal principles being laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
catena of decisions, whereby the Courts have been directed to take
into consideration the expenses which the acquiring body may incur
for the public purpose, for which, the lands are acquired.
20. At this stage, appropriate would be to look into the relevant
observations of this Court in the case of General Manager, O.N.G.C.
Limited vs. Chamanji Kuberji & Ors. reported in (2013) 4 GLR 2769, a
similar kind of assertion was made on behalf of the appellant State
Authorities. However, in absence of the evidence being adduced by
the State, the Court observed as under:
"4.1 Mr. Soni further contended that once the initial
burden is discharged, the onus shifts on the other side. In
the case before us, the onus shifted to the appellant but
the appellant failed to produce any evidence showing
that the assertion of the witness examined on behalf of
the claimants was wrong.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and
after going through the materials on record, we agree
with Mr. Mehta, the learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellant, that the initial burden is upon
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
the claimants to prove that the amount awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer was inadequate and it is
also the duty of the claimants to prove the actual market
value. However, the law is now well settled that even if
the initial burden is upon a particular party, in the course
of the trial, once some evidence is adduced in discharge
of the initial burden, the onus consequently shifts to the
respondents to produce evidence to show that the
assertion of the witness examined on behalf of the
plaintiff was wrong. In the case before us, as already
pointed out, the witness examined on behalf of the
claimants has in detail described the location of the land
which is at a distance of 4 to 5 kms from Pethapur, and
has also asserted that the claimants used to take three
crops in a year and that the modern facilities for
cultivation are available to the claimants. Although some
suggestions were given to the said witness that those
assertions are wrong, the sole witness for the appellant-
ONGC has admitted that modern facilities of cultivation
are available with the claimants. He further admitted
that he did not actually see the acquired lands and he
was giving the oral evidence by only reading the award.
Such being the admission of the sole witness examined
on behalf of ONGC, we cannot rely upon his assertion
regarding the nature of land and in such situation, we are
left with no other alternative but to believe the evidence
given by the witness examined on behalf of the claimants
which has remained uncontroverted. It is well-settled law
that unless the evidence adduced by the witness for the
party upon whom the onus lies is found to be incorrect
from his own deposition or otherwise inherently
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
impossible, a Court should not generally disbelieve such
version in the absence of any contrary evidence given by
the opponent. In the case before us, the version of the
claimant is also supported by the certificates given by
the Talati-cum-Mantri, which are exhibited and no
suggestion was given that those were not genuine and
were fabricated ones or that the contents thereof was
not true. If any such assertion was made, the claimants
were then further required to bring the author of the
certificates; but in the absence of even any suggestion in
this regard, there was no necessity of producing the
author of the certificate, more particularly, when there is
no other evidence to the contrary. The claimants having
discharged the initial burden, it was for the State or the
Appellant, to produce some evidence showing that the
assertion of the PW- 1 was wrong or that the land in
question was in any respect inferior to the one in respect
of the adjoining village for which value has been
assessed at Rs. 353/- per sq. mtr.
9. In the absence of any cogent evidence produced by
the acquiring body or the State showing that the
assertion of the claimants is false, we are left with no
other alternative but to believe the evidence adduced on
behalf of the referring claimants.
11. In the cases before us, both the parties have led
evidence on the question of valuation of the land in
question. The appellant who is a party to the judgment in
respect of the land of the adjoining village (whereas the
claimants are not) had some responsibility to explain that
the quality of the land involved therein was better than
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
the one which is the subject-matter of the present
litigation. Thus, the abstract doctrine of burden of proof
does not help the appellant when the initial burden has
been discharged by the claimants.
21. It would be appropriate to take into consideration the relevant
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh
Dattatray Thirthkar vs State Of Maharashtra reported in 2009 (11)
SCC 141. In the aforesaid decision, the claimants have produced a
valuation report and a sale transaction and the Reference Court by
relying upon the aforesaid evidence, had held that the claimants have
successfully proved the market value of the acquired property, and
therefore, legitimately concluded that the burden of proving
inadequacy of the amount which lay on the claimant was successfully
discharged. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
as recorded in para 27, 28, 30 and 34 are as under:
"27. It is not in dispute that power under Article
136 of the Constitution of India is exercisable not only
against a judgment of reversal on facts but also in
cases of concurrent findings of fact and such powers
are wide enough. This view was expressed by this
Court way back in the year 1958 in the case of State of
Madras v. A.Vaidyanatha Iyer (AIR 1958 SC 61). In Para
13 at page 64 of the aforesaid decision, this Court
observed as follows:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
13. "in Article 136 the use of the words `Supreme
Court may in its discretion grant special leave to
appeal from any judgment, decree, determination,
sentence or order in any cause or matter passed or
made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India'
show that in criminal matters no distinction can be
made as a matter of construction between a
judgment of conviction or acquittal."
A reading of this observation of this Court, as
quoted herein above and considering the expressions
used in Article 136 of the Constitution, it would not
be difficult to understand that this Court in its
discretion may grant leave to appeal from any
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order
in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or
tribunal in the territory of India which would be
apparent also in cases of judgment of reversal and
affirmance in civil proceedings.
28. It is true that the aforesaid observation was
made by this Court while dealing with a criminal case
but the scope of Article 136 of the Constitution of
India cannot be different in civil or criminal
proceedings. It is also true that this Court while
exercising its power under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India will not readily interfere with the
findings of fact given by the High Court but it can
interfere with such findings of fact if the High Court
acts perversely or otherwise improperly.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
30. In Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham &
Anr. ((1979) 2 SCC 297), this Court while agreeing with
the views expressed in the aforementioned decisions
of this Court stated thus:
4. The power is plenary in the sense that
there are no words in Article 136 itself
qualifying that power. But, the very nature of
the power has led the court to set limits to
itself within which to exercise such power. It
is now the well-established practice of this
Court to permit the invocation of the power
under Article 136 only in very exceptional
circumstances, as when a question of law of
general public importance arises or a decision
shocks the conscience of the court. But
within the restrictions imposed by itself, this
Court has the undoubted power to interfere
with the findings of fact, making no
distinction between judgments of acquittal
and conviction, if the High Court, in arriving
at those findings, has "acted perversely or
otherwise improperly."
(emphasis supplied)
34. As noted herein earlier, this Court does not
normally reappreciate evidence under Article 136, but
when the High Court has redetermined a fact in issue
in a civil appeal, and erred in drawing interferences
based on presumptions, the Supreme Court can
reappreciate the evidence to prevent further delay
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
instead of remanding the matter (See : Dr.N.G.
Dastane v. Mrs.S. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 329)."
22. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, it is an
undisputed fact that except for examination of the witness by the
State Authorities, no evidence worth has been brought on record to
demonstrate that the exemplar relied upon by the Reference Court,
was not acceptable. The State Authorities have measurably failed to
lead any evidence with regard to their claims of the lands being
acquired for the different public purpose and the expenses being
incurred accordingly, to be considered as a relevant factor for the
purpose of determination of the additional amount of compensation.
In absence of any contradictory material being placed for
consideration before this Court in the present appeals or before the
Reference Court, this Court is of the view that the Reference Court
has rightly taken into consideration the judgment passed by the
Reference Court in Land Reference Case No. 6 of 2012 and allied
matters, which was in respect of the same village and for the public
purpose to be treated as the best exemplar available on record for the
purpose of determination of additional amount of compensation.
23. In the opinion of this Court, the Reference Court in a way has
taken into consideration both the factors i.e. the proximity of time line
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
as well as the proximity of position of the lands before taking into
consideration as the exemplar available for the purpose of
determination of the additional amount of compensation.
24. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeals fail and stand
dismissed.
ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION OF FIRST APPEAL NO.896 OF 2020,
899 OF 2020, 900 OF 2020, FIRST APPEAL 1089 OF 2020, FIRST
APPEAL NO.1080 OF 2020 AND FIRST APPEAL NOS.1303 TO 1305
OF 2020:
25. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manohar Rahevar
appearing for the State Authorities has challenged the impugned
judgment and award in the present set of appeals, by contending that
the same pertains to acquisition of the nearby village Sardarpur,
whereas the exemplar relied upon by the Reference Court pertains to
acquisition of lands of village Jantral.
26. In the opinion of this Court, as rightly pointed out by learned
advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati appearing for the respondents- claimants,
it is evident from the map produced on record at Exh. 25 both the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
villages Jantral and Sardarpur are situated in same Taluka-Vijapur of
District-Mehsana and share the common village boundary. In fact, on
close examination of the aforesaid land reference case with the
details of Land Reference Case Nos. 8 of 2014 and allied matters,
pertains to the same public purpose i.e. for the construction of Dharoi
Canal.
27. Noticing the aforesaid factors, this Court is of the view that no
error of fact or law is found in the impugned judgment and award
passed by the Reference Court. On the contrary, close reading of the
findings and the reasons assigned by the Reference Court, two
essential criterias i.e. the proximity of time line and the proximity of
the situation of the lands have been taken into consideration while
following the judgment of the Reference Court in Land Reference
Case No.6 of 2012 and allied matters, which has also been followed in
the case of Land Reference Case No. 8 of 2014 and allied matters, and
has been confirmed by this Court in First Appeal No. 3295 of 2018 and
First Appeal No. 1126 of 2020 and allied matters .
28. For the reasons assigned in the aforesaid appeals, this Court is
not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and award
under challenge in the present appeals as well.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/896/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/02/2025
undefined
29. For the foregoing reasons, all these appeals fail and stand
dismissed. Notice stands discharged.
30. This brings me to the issuance of directions with regard to the
release and disbursement of the deposited award amount, in view of
the fact that the First Appeals stand disposed of, 50% of remaining
amount invested in fixed deposit with nationalized bank, in view of
the interim directions of this Court, pending the appeals, the
Reference Court is directed to release and disburse the aforesaid
amounts lying in the FDR's in favor of the respective claimants, subject
to due verification and their identification. Let the aforesaid exercise
be undertaken by the Reference Court within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of the copy this order.
31. Record and proceedings received in respective appeals, are
directed to be sent back forthwith to the concerned Reference Court.
32. With these observations, the present First Appeals stand
dismissed.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
SUYASH SRIVASTAVA
