Gujarat High Court
Thakersibhai Keharbhai (Decd Thro ... vs Deputy Collector on 22 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4848 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4849 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4850 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4851 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4852 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4853 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4854 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4855 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4856 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4857 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4858 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4860 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4861 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4862 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4863 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4864 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4865 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4869 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4870 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4871 of 2006
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4872 of 2006
Page 1 of 15
Uploaded by RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH JILUSINH(HC00957) on Fri Feb 21 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 21:26:02 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
THAKERSIBHAI KEHARBHAI (DECD THRO LEGAL HEIRS) & ORS.
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
ADVOCATE NOTICE SERVED for the Appellant(s) No. 1.2.1
ADVOCATE NOTICE UNSERVED for the Appellant(s) No.
1.2.2,1.2.4,1.2.5
MR JAY P AMIN(3368) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,2
UNSERVED EXPIRED (N) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.2.3
Mr. Manohar Rahevar GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Defendant(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 22/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeals are directed at the instance of the
original claimants - appellants herein being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the common judgment and award dated
1.10.2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Ahmedabad (Rural) in Land Reference Case No.14 of 1999
and allied matters. The present appeals are filed under
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with
Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying for
enhancement of the award amount of compensation.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal as can be
noticed from the record are as under:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
2.1. The lands of the appellants original owners situated at
village Dharpipla, Taluka : Dhandhuka, District : Ahmedabad
were acquired for the purpose of implementing the project
viz. "Sukh Bhadar Irrigation Project". The State had notified
its intention to acquire lands by publishing Notification under
Section 4 of the Act of 1894 on 20.03.1993 followed by
Notification under Section 6 of the Act, which was published
on 14.10.1993.
2.2. After following due process of law envisaged under the
Act, the affected landowners were heard by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer. After considering the objection raised, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer had determined the market
value of the lands acquired at the rate of Rs.0.90 per sq mtr
for Jirayat Land and Rs.1.10 per sq mtr for Bagayat Land
along with other statutory benefits by its award dated
25.1.1994 passed in Land Reference Case No. 2 of 1992. The
affected landowners being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
aforesaid award passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer under Section 11 of the Act had applied for Reference.
The reference was placed for consideration before the Court
of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural),
which was registered as Land Reference Case No.14 of 1999
(Main) (LAR Case Nos. 14 to 27 of 1999).
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
2.3. The said Land Reference Cases were consolidated and by
common judgment and award dated 1.10.2005, the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedaabad (Rural) was pleased
to partly allow the Reference by awarding additional
compensation of Rs.4.50 per sq mtr. It was further directed
that the amount paid by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
in Land Reference Case No.2 of 1992 was to be deducted in
the final payment to be made to the claimants. The claimants
were also held entitled to the other statutory benefits
envisaged under the Act. Against the aforesaid awarded
amount, the claimants had approached this Court by
preferring present appeals thereby seeking enhanced amount
of compensation of Rs.30/- per sq mtrs as against the awarded
amount of Rs.4.50 per sq mtr i.e. Rs.5.40 per sq mtr for
Jirayat land and Rs.5.60 per sq mtr for Bagayat land.
3. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal, the Division
Bench of this Court at relevant stage by order dated
12.12.2006 had admitted the appeals. The Record and
Proceedings of the Reference Cases were sought for by
various orders. In the interregnum, out of 26 matters, it was
reported that the sole appellants in few of the cases have
expired. The time was granted to take necessary steps in this
regard, however in absence of the steps being taken, the
appeals have been disposed of today by separate order by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
holding that the proceedings stand abated automatically with
a further liberty to revive the aforesaid appeals. The
captioned appeals have been heard and decided on merits by
this common order.
4. Learned advocate for the appellants- original claimants, at
the outset, has invited attention of this Court to the reasons
assigned by the learned Judge to point out the manner in
which the additional amount of compensation was
determined. Learned advocate has submitted that essentially
the learned Judge has placed reliance upon the document
produced at Exh.44 which is the copy of the judgment and
award passed in Land Reference Case Nos.138 of 1993 to 148
of 1993 produced by the State Authorities. According to the
learned advocate, the learned Judge has completely ignored
the comparable instances produced by the original claimants.
The reliance was placed on the document produced on record
i.e. judgment and award dated 27.1.1997 passed by the
learned 2nd Joint District Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Land
Acquisition Case Nos. 72 of 1989 to 101 of 1989. By the said
judgment and award the Reference Court has partly allowed
the reference preferred by the original claimants thereby
holding the claimants entitled to additional amount of
compensation at the rate of Rs.12 per sq mtrs with all
consequential statutory benefits. Learned advocate has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
further pointed out that in the aforesaid group of Land
Reference Cases, the lands were acquired of the same village
Dharpipla for the public purpose of the same irrigation project
i.e. "Sukh Bhadar Irrigation Project". The Notification under
Section 4 of the Act of 1894 was issued in this case on
23.7.1984 followed by Section 6 Notification which was issued
thereafter on 20.12.1985. Learned advocate has further
invited attention of this Court to the reasons recorded by the
learned Judge while allowing the aforesaid Land Reference
Cases. It was further pointed out that being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award, the
respondent State had approached in appeal before this Court
which was registered as First Appeal No.262 of 1992 to 291 of
1992. The aforesaid group of appeals along with the
respective Civil Application for condonation of delay were
notified before the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on
3.7.1998 and by common oral order the Hon'ble Division
Bench was pleased to condone the delay however was pleased
to dismiss the First Appeals preferred by the State. The
Hon'ble Division Bench was further pleased to direct the State
to deposit an aggregate amount of award together with costs
and interest in the Reference Court separately in each of the
Land Reference Cases within the period of three months
thereafter. By referring to the aforesaid instances, the learned
advocate has submitted that in absence of any further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
challenge being made to the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble
Division Bench, the award passed by the learned Joint District
Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) determining the additional amount
of compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq mtrs in case of
acquisition of lands relating to Notification under Section 4 of
the Act issued in the year 1985 had attained finality. He has
further pointed out that the lands acquired of the same village
for the same public purpose has attained finality in light of the
aforesaid decision where the amount of compensation
determined at the rate of Rs.12/- per sq mtrs way back in the
year 1985 being crystallized. The learned Reference Court
ought to have awarded the amount higher than what has been
awarded by the impugned judgment and award. According to
him, even giving 10% annual rise by treating the amount of
Rs.12/- per sq mtrs as base price would earn an amount
higher than the amount of Rs.4.50 per sq mtrs as determined
by the impugned judgment and award. He has therefore
prayed to allow the present appeals in the aforesaid terms.
5. Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned Assistant Government
Pleader has appeared on behalf of the respondent State
Authorities and has vehemently objected to the aforesaid
submissions made by the learned advocate on record for the
appellants. It is submitted that the learned Judge has rightly
placed reliance upon the document placed by the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
State Authority at Exh.44. While referring to the judgment
and order passed in LAR Case No.138 of 1993 and allied
matters, the respondent State Authorities have also examined
the witness viz. Shri Chaturbhai Kanabhai at Exh.41 through
whom the aforesaid document has been duly proved. As
against that the claimant has not produced any documentary
evidence to demonstrate that they are deriving more income
from the agricultural produce neither they have produced any
sale deed. It is in these circumstances, the learned Judge has
placed reliance upon the document produced on record by the
opponent State Authority at Exh.44. While referring to the
aforesaid document, learned Assistant Government Pleader
has further submitted that the lands of the village Keriya has
been acquired and considering overall evidence the market
value of the acquired land in the present case for the
irrigation scheme were fixed at the rate of Rs.4.50 per sq
mtrs. He has therefore submitted that no error can be found
with the approach of the learned Judge in fixing the additional
amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.4.50 per sq mtrs.
6. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective
parties and having perused the impugned judgment and
award in light of the documents placed on record, it is clearly
evident from the reasons assigned by the learned Reference
Court that comparable instance produced on record by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
original claimants at Exh.40 and Exh.67 has totally lost sight
of the learned Judge. The close reading of the reasons
assigned, the learned Single Judge does not refer to the
aforesaid document produced by the claimants. Learned
advocate for the claimant has in fact invited my attention to
the submission made by the original claimants before the
learned Reference Court while referring to the aforesaid
document being placed on record for consideration. It would
be appropriate to reproduce relevant portions as recorded by
the learned Judge in the impugned judgment and award in
para 25 and 26.
"25. xxx Moreover, the other lands of the same
villages are required for the same purpose by the
Land Acquisition Officer and the Land Acquisition
Officer had also passed an award to that effect and the
said award was inadequate and therefore, the Land
Reference Cases were filed before the District Court
bearing Land Reference Case No.72 of 1989 to 101 of
1989 and in these case the Hon'ble District Court
fixed the price of the market value for the sum of
Rs.12.50 ps per sq mtrs and the said judgment is
produced vide Exh.40 and the copy of the Hon'ble
High Court's Judgment is produced by the claimants
vide Exh.67. The Claimants have stated in their
written arguments that the opponents are not correct.
Therefore, the claimants have prayed to fix the market
value of the acquired land for the sum of Rs.30/- per
sq mtrs.
26. The claimants have produced their further written
arguments vide Exh.76 and stated that they have
amended the prayer for the additional compensation
from Rs.20/- to Rs.30/- per sq mtrs and prayed that
after considering all aspects and documentary
evidence and Judgment produced by them, the
claimants be allowed to Rs.30/- per sq mtrs for the
acquired land."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
7. On examining the aforesaid document produced on record,
it clearly transpires that the lands of the same village
Dharpipla were acquired for the same public purpose though
Notification (under Section 4 of the Act issued on 23.7.1984)
was produced on record at Exh.40 which was published
thereafter in the government gazette on 12.12.1984. The
award under Section 11 of the Act was determined by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer in LAR Case No.46 of 1984
by award dated 16.7.1986 thereby awarding compensation at
Rs.0.30 ps to 0.50 ps per sq mtrs to the respective claimants
with all consequential benefits. The aforesaid award of the
Special Land Acquisition Officer was subject matter of
Reference before the learned 2nd Joint District Judge,
Ahmedabad (Rural) which was registered as LAR Case No.72
of 1989 to 101 of 1989. The learned District Judge upon
appreciating the evidence brought on record had granted
additional amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.12 per sq
mtrs to the respective claimants with all consequential
statutory benefits. Indisputably, the aforesaid award was
subject matter of challenge in appeal at the instance of the
State whereby, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court
refused to entertain the appeal on merits after condoning the
delay as is evident from the document produced on record at
Exh.67. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned advocate
for the appellants that the aforesaid judgment and award has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
attained finality. The above aspect has unfortunately missed
sight of the learned Judge while deciding the Reference in the
present matter. Considering the fact that the lands of the
same village were acquired for the same public purpose ought
to have been treated as the best exemplar available for the
purpose of determination of the additional amount of
compensation of acquired lands. As against that, the reliance
placed upon by the learned Judge on the document produced
on record by the respondent State Authorities which
otherwise pertained to the land acquired of the neighboring
village Keriya, with lesser value could not be considered best
exemplar. It is a settled legal position that the affected
landowners are required to be compensated with best suitable
price / compensation. As regards the additional amount of
compensation, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in
the present case was issued on 28.3.1993 which is almost
after a gap of 9 years and 3 months. Learned advocate for the
appellant has placed on record the additional amount of
compensation to be determined on the cumulative basis for
the aforesaid period by applying annual increases at the rate
of 10%. It would be appropriate at this stage to look into the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
General Manager Oil and Natural Gas Corporation
Limited vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Another
reported in (2018) 14 SCC 745 wherein, the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
Supreme Court has laid down the principle of determining the
compensation on the basis of annual increase with cumulative
effect, however at the same time, a word of caution has been
mentioned that in case of annual increase it can be confined
for a period of 4 to 5 years and beyond that it would be unsafe
to uniformly apply the same rate for increase and that too
with cumulative effect. The para 15 of the said judgment
deserves mention here:
"15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of
determining the market value by providing appropriate
escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands
in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or
acquisitions), where there is no evidence of any
contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of
comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said
method is reasonably safe where the relied-on sale
transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition
by only a few years, that is, up to four to five years.
Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a
neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if
the gap is of only a few years, may become unsafe and
unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For
example, for determining the market value of a land
acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method
with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980
may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course
of years, the "rate" of annual increase may itself undergo
drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of
varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts
in prices affecting the very standard of increase."
8. The aforesaid decision has thereafter been relied upon by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. In one of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
recent decision in the case of Central Warehousing
Corporation vs. Thakur Dwara Kalan Ul -maruf Baraglan
Wala (Dead) & Ors reported in 2023(14) Scale 620, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has upon overall appreciation of the
view expressed consistently in its earlier decision has held
that it would be fair and reasonable to determine the amount
of compensation by applying 8% annual increase with
cumulative effect in case where the gap of period is up to 11
years. Applying the aforesaid principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the
original claimants- present appellants shall be entitled to the
additional amount of compensation at the rate of Rs.12/- per
sq mtr to be treated as base price by applying 8% annual
increase with cumulative effect for the gap of interregnum
period of 8 years and 3 months between two notifications
issued under Section 4 of the Act.
Year Price ( at 8% increase)
23.07.1984
31.12.1984 12.08
( 5 months approx.)
1985-1986 13.05
1986-1987 14.09
1987-1988 15.22
1988-1989 16.44
1989-1990 17.75
1990-1991 19.17
1991-1992 20.70
1992-1993 22.35
01.01.1993 to 20.03.1993 22.28
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
( approx.3 months)
10. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeals stand
partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. The original claimants
are hereby held entitled to an additional amount of
compensation at the rate of Rs. 23.00 ps. (round of figure of
Rs. 22.28 ps) per sq.mrts., on the date of section 4 notification
viz. 20.03.1993. The impugned common judgment and award
dated 1.10.2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Land Reference Case No.14 of
1999 and allied matters is hereby stands modified in aforesaid
terms. The amount so far realised at the stage of section 11
award and pursuant to the impugned judgment and award are
accordingly required to be deducted as being paid. The
respondents authorities are directed to deposit the remaining
amount of additional compensation within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of the present order with the
concerned Reference Court. Upon deposit of additional
amount of compensation, present appellants- original
claimants are permitted to withdraw the aforesaid amount.
The Reference Court after due verification shall disburse such
amount in favour of the present appellants - original
claimants. Any amount lying in the Fixed Deposits Receipts is
directed to be permitted to be released in favour of the
original claimants.
11. It is further clarified that in the matters where the heirs
have not been brought on record and the appeals have been
disposed of in their absence, however, the Reference Court
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4848/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/01/2025
undefined
while considering the disbursement and apportionment of the
enhanced amount of compensation shall decide the
entitlement of their respective shares strictly in accordance
with law.
With these observations, present appeals stand disposed
of. Registry is directed to send back the Record and
Proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith.
sd/-
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
RATHOD KAUSHIKSINH
