Gujarat High Court
Bhagwanji Vashram vs State Of Gujarat on 31 January, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1696 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1696 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1698 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1698 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1697 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1697 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1694 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1694 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1693 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1693 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1690 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1690 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3737 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3737 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1687 of 2020
Page 1 of 26
Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1687 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1686 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1686 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1683 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1683 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3821 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3821 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3820 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3820 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1684 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1684 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1689 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1689 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1692 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
Page 2 of 26
Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1692 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1691 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1691 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1918 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1699 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1699 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1688 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1688 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3713 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3713 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1695 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1695 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1685 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES)
NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1685 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
==========================================================
Page 3 of 26
Uploaded by MAYA S. CHAUHAN(HC01402) on Thu Feb 20 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 21 23:38:50 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
BHAGWANJI VASHRAM
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KUNAL S SHAH(5282) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 31/01/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Kunal S. Shah, learned advocate on record
for the appellant and Mr. Manohar Rahevar, learned AGP
appearing for the respondent - State.
2. The present appeal is filed under section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code
of Civil Procedure, at the instance of the original claimants,
being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and
award dated 30.03.2011 passed by the learned 3
rd
Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in Land Reference Case No.190
of 2006 and allied matters, preferred under Section 18 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
3. By the said common judgment and award, the Reference
Court has partly allowed the reference preferred by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
original claimants holding the claimants entitled to
compensation @ Rs.43/- per sq. meter for their non-irrigated
lands of Village Sherdi, Taluka Manavadar, District
Junagadh. The market value of non-irrigated land fixed
@ Rs. 5.25 per sq. meter as per the award passed by the
land acquisition officer which has been paid to the claimants
has been deducted from the aforesaid amount of compensation
determined i.e. Rs.43-Rs.5.25ps.=Rs.37.75ps. per sq. meter. The
Reference Court has therefore awarded additional amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.38-00ps. per sq. mt. towards
the non-irrigated acquired lands. Accordingly, the market
value of the irrigated land is determined @ Rs.58-00ps. per
sq. meter. Apart from the aforesaid additional amount of
compensation, the reference Court has also held the claimants
entitled to get interest @ 12% per annum on the additional
amount from the date of publication of notification under
section 4(1) of the Act, 1894 till the date of declaring the
award by the Special Land Acquisition Officer as per the
provisions of Section 23(IA) of the Act. The claimants are
also held entitled to get solatium @ 30% on the additional
amount awarded by the Reference Court in view of the
provisions of section 23(2) of the Act, 1894. The opponents
are accordingly directed to pay interest on the total aggregate
amount of compensation @ 9% per annum from the date of
taking of possession or from the date of publication of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
notification under section 4 of the Act of 1894, whichever
may be earlier for the first year and thereafter @15% per
annum till the date of realization of the payable total
aggregate according to the provisions of Section 28 of the
Act, 1894. Hence, these appeals at instance of original
claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid
amount of additional compensation on lower side.
4. In order to appreciate the case of the present appellant
praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation, the
relevant dates would be necessary for adjudication. The lands
of the original claimants situated in the sim of village
Sherdi, Taluka Manavadar, District Junagadh were intended
to be acquired for the public purpose of "Badar -2 Irrigated"
Scheme. The State had issued a preliminary notification for
acquisition of the aforesaid lands of village Sherdi by issuing
notification under section 4 of the Act on 12.07.2005 which
was published in the Government Gazette on 15.07.2005.
Subsequently, the notification under section 6 of the Act of
1894 was published on 22.09.2005. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer appointed by the State had thereafter
proceeded to determine the market value of the acquired
lands and notices in this regard were issued under section 9
of the Act to the interested parties. The respective objectors
were heard and the award was passed by the Special Land
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the Act of 1894 on
26.12.2005. By the aforesaid award, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer had directed payment of compensation to
the tune of Rs.650/- per acre for irrigated land and Rs.525/-
per acre for non-irrigated land.
5. The original claimants being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the aforesaid amount of compensation had moved in
reference before the Collector which was presented before the
Court of 3
rd
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh on
10.04.2006. On the same date, the land reference cases were
registered under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. Land
Reference Case No. 190 of 2006 was treated as the main
case. The cognate matters were heard and directed to be
consolidated by the Reference Court. The common evidence
were led by the respective parties in the group of reference
cases.
6. Considering the pleadings, the learned Judge had
framed following issues at Ex-12:
1] Whether the claimant/applicant proves that compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer is unjust, improper,
unreasonable and inadequate ?
2] If yes, what ought to be the just, proper, reasonable
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
and adequate compensation ?
3] What order ?
7. The claimants have examined one Gordhanbhai
Madhabhai Kalariya, being one of the claimant of L.R.C.
No. 195 of 2006 at Exh.-22. The documentary evidence were
also placed on record which include the copy of the award
passed in L.A.Q. No. 28 of 2003 at Exh.-9. The copy of the
order dated 03.08.1991 passed by the Collector, Junagadh for
selling out the land of Government to GETCO at Exh.-18,
copy of deposition of one Avinash Hasmukhrai Nanavati,
Executive Engineer, P.G.V.C.L., as recorded in L.R.C. No.1359
of 1999 was also placed on record at Exh.-19. The closing
pursis was thereafter tendered at Exh.-23 by the claimants.
As against the aforesaid evidence of the claimants, the
respondent - State authorities has produced on record
voluminous documentary evidences, the details of which are
reproduced in the tabular form as under:
OPPONENT'S EVIDENCE :
Exh. 74: Affidavit of Shri Bharatkumar Kantilal Joshi, Dy.
Collector and Land Acquisition Officer (Irrigation),
Junagadh.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
Exh. 36: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 102
of Rathod Mulubhai Jivabhai.
Exh. 37: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 103
of Rathod Ramji Jethabhai.
Exh. 38: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No.
101/1 Paiki of Padhariya Mulubhai Parbatbhai.
Exh. 39: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No.
101/2 paiki of Madhabhai and Radhaben Gagjibhai.
Exh. 40: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 93
paiki of Vachhani Gokal Devraj.
Exh. 41: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 92
of Bhalodiya Gopalbhai Gordhanbhai.
Exh. 42: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 22
of Jamkuben Jerajbhai.
Exh. 43: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 21
of Vachhani Parbat Kurji.
Exh. 44: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12. S.No. 20
of Vachhani Parbat Kurji.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
Exh. 45: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 13
of Rathod Pravin Karshan.
Exh. 46: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12. S.No. 14
of Rathod Pravin Karshan.
Exh. 47: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 24
paiki of Kalariya Gordhan Madha.
Exh. 48: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 24/1
of Kalariya Parshotam Madhabhai.
Exh. 49: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 11/1
of Dudhiben, Nanduben, Krashnaben Aba,
Kantaben, Lalitaben, Devji, purchaser of land
Bhagwanji Vashram.
Exh. 50: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12. S.No. 34/2
of Koradiya Hira Daya.
Exh. 51: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 34/3
of Tilva Harji Nanji.
Exh. 52: Certified copy of Village Form No. 7/12, S.No. 35/2
of Tilva Mithiben, Ramji, Hansraj, Kesarben
Thakarshi.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
Exh. 53: Certified copy of Para - 104 of L.A.Q. No. 28/03.
Exh. 54: Certified copy of Award of L.A.Q. No. 28/03.
Exh. 55: Certified copy of letter of Talati-cum-Mantri, Sherdi
for serving notice u/S. 12(2) of Act to interested.
Exh. 56: Certified copy of Statement of execution in LAQ
28/03.
Exh. 57: Certified copy of Statement of execution as per
S. 12(2).
Exh. 58: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Koradiya Hira Daya.
Exh. 59: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Koradiya Vashram Daya.
Exh. 60: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Babiben and Pravin Karshan
Exh. 61: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Vachhani Parbat Kurji.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
Exh. 62: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Vachhani Parbat Kurji.
Exh. 63: Certified copy of Form "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Jamkuben Jerajbhai.
Exh. 64: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Kalariya Parshotam Madha.
Exh. 65: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Kalariya Gordhan Madha.
Exh. 66: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Bhalodiya Gopal Karshan.
Exh. 67: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Vachhani Gokal Devraj.
Exh. 68: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Vachhani Gokal Devraj.
Exh. 69: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Rathod Mulubhai Jivrajbhai.
Exh. 70: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Rathod Ramji Jethabhai.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
Exh. 71: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Rathod Kishorbhai Mulubhai.
Exh. 72: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Padhiyar Mulu Parbat.
Exh. 73: Certified copy of Form No. "GG" and Possession
Receipt of Madhabhai, Radhaben, Gagji.
The respondent - State authorities have not examined
any witness. The closing pursis was thereafter tendered by
the respondent - State authorities.
8. Considering the overall evidence brought on record by
the respective parties, the Reference Court had accepted the
evidence produced by the original claimant at Exh.-18 to be
the best exampler for the purpose of determining the
additional amount of compensation of the acquired lands. It
would be relevant to reproduce the findings and the reasons
assigned by the learned judge while determining the
additional amount of compensation based on the instance
produced by the claimants at Ex-18.
"(12) Looking the documents vide Exh. 18, it is order
for fixing the market value of land of village Sardargadh
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
which had been given to GETCO for construction of 66 KV.
Sub-Station. Government had fixed the market value of
land which was vested in Gram Panchayat, Sardargadh.
Looking the order and fact of that land, it is appeared
that the land had been acquired by GETCO for the
commercial purpose as the GETCO is doing the business of
supply electricity. Hence, the government had assessed the
market price at the highest rate with view to gain more
price of the land which generate the public fund in the
interest of public. Simultaneously, the GETCO might be
paid high rate for the land for commercial purpose because
GETCO can be gained higher profit from its business.
When the government land acquired by the Corporation
who is doing its business for electricity supply for
commercial purpose then Corporation can pay higher rate
of the land. When the government give its own land then
whatever may be consideration amount at higher rate will
come ultimately, it will go in the public fund and it will
be used for the development of public at large. So, the
government can assess the market value of its own land at
higher rate in the interest of public for generate public
fund. When the government acquired the land of private
party then the land is not acquired for the commercial
purpose but it is acquired for the public purpose. Hence,
the rate of the market value of the land of the private
party cannot be assessed at the rate of the government
land. It is well settled that all land is of the government.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
Individual private party is only an occupier. Hence, the
government is real owner of the all land. Hence, when the
government acquired the land of private party in the
interest of public at large then the rate cannot be fixed at
higher rate.
(13) In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions,
of course this court considered the reliance vide Exh. 18
for fixing the market value of the acquired lands but the
notification of the acquired land was published in the year
- 2005 when the market value of the government land had
been fixed at higher rate in the year - 1991. As the
Special Land Acquisition Officer has determined market
price of the acquired land for Irrigated land Rs. 650/- per
Acre and Rs. 525/- for Non Irrigated land, hence, the
compensation awarded is inadequate.
(14) Now, the question is that what is the additional
compensation of the acquired lands? Of-course, the
applicants has given the evidence of crops and price of the
crops of the acquired lands but he has not relied upon the
yield method. In argument and in evidence, he relied upon
documents vide Ext. 18 for fixing the market value of
acquired lands. The said document is the order of the
Government in which fixed the market value at the rate of
Rs. 35-60 ps. per sq. mtr. of village Sardargadh and this
land is far 2 kms. from the acquired lands and it is
admitted by the opponent in his evidence. But in aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
discussions and reasons, the rate of the market price of
government cannot be totally considered for fixing the
market price of land of private party as discussed above.
Therefore, 50% less than the rate of market price of the
government land then it is just, proper and adequate
market price of the acquired land. Therefore, Rs. 17-80 ps.
per sq. mtr. (Rs. 35 - 60/2=Rs. 17-80 ps.) is just proper
and adequate market price of the acquired land. Also
applicants are entitled for 10% rising price per year.
Therefore, 10% rising price per year i.e. 12 months is
multiplied by 167 months [Order of Government dtd. 3-8-
1991 Exh. 18, Date of Notification u/S. 4 15-7-2005 = 13
Yrs. 11 Months ] (13 Yrs. = 156 months + 11 months) and
it comes to Rs. 24.77 Ps. per Sq. Mtrs. (10% rising price
comes Rs. 1.78 Ps. per year ie. 12 months X 167 months =
Rs. 24.77 Ps.) and this amount should be added in the
market price fixed i.e. Rs. 17-80 Ps. then it comes to
Rs. 42-57 Ps. per Sq. Mtrs. (Rs. 17-80 Ps. + Rs. 24-77 Ps.
= 42-57 Ps.) and for the convenience this figure when
converted in to round figure, then it comes to Rs. 43-00
Ps., per Sq. Mtrs. This amount is determined for Non
Irrigated land.
14.1 But, in this case some lands are also irrigated
lands hence, the price of irrigated lands is also required to
be decided. As per the settled law, 50% is to be added in
the price of Non Irrigated land. In this case, price of Non
Irrigated land is decided Rs. 43/- as discussed above
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
therefore, 50% amount of this price comes to Rs. 21.50 Ps.
Now, this amount is to be added in Rs. 43-00Ps. + Rs. 21-
50 Ps, = 64-50 Ps. per Sq. Mtrs. It is the price of
Irrigated land.
14.2 As per the award Rs. 5.25 per Sq. Mtrs. has
been awarded and paid hence, this amount is to be
deducted from Rs. 43/-per Sq. Mtrs. so it comes to Rs. 37-
75 Ps. taking into round figure, Rs. 38-00 Ps. Hence,
Rs.38/- will be the additional compensation of Non Irrigated
Land. Same way, while calculating amount of Irrigated
land, the awarded and paid amount is Rs. 6.50 per Sq.
Mtrs. for irrigated land is to be deducted from Rs. 64-50
Ps., the price of Irrigated land. Hence, it comes to Rs. 58-
00 Ps. This will be the amount of additional compensation
for the Irrigated land. Hence, the answer of Issue Nos. 1
and 2 are accordingly."
9. Thus, in light of the aforesaid findings and reasons, the
learned Judge was pleased to partly allow the reference cases
by impugned judgment and award, however, the original
claimants being dissatisfied with the aforesaid additional
amount of compensation being determined at the lower side,
has approached in Appeal before this Court by present
appeals.
10. The record reveals that the aforesaid appeals were
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
preferred with the delay condonation application as appeals
were preferred almost after a period of 9 years, to be
precised with delay of 2931 days. The civil application for
condonation of delay was decided by the learned Single Judge
and by order dated 28.11.2019 was pleased to condone the
delay. The appeals were thereafter registered and were placed
for admission- hearing. Along with the present appeals, the
application for production of additional evidence was also
preferred by the original claimants - Appellants herein which
were registered as Civil Application No.1 of 2019 and allied
matters. These applications have been notified along with the
present group of appeals and are decided by this common
judgment.
11. In the aforesaid application, the original claimants
intends to rely upon mainly two instances, firstly, the copy of
the judgment dated 14.11.2018 passed by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Manavadar, Junagadh in L.R.C.
No. 191 of 2017 (main) and allied matters, L.R.C. Case
No.192 of 2017 to L.R.C. Case No.194 of 2017. Secondly, copy
of the judgment dated 14.11.2018 passed by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Manavadar, District Junagadh in
L.R.C. Case No.156 of 2017 (main) with the allied matters
being L.R.C. Case No.157 to 174 of 2017. The examination of
the aforesaid documents indicates that Section 4 notification
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
in the first reference case was issued on 03.06.2010 in case
of the acquired lands of Village Limbuda, Taluka Manavadar,
District Junagadh whereas in the second case, it pertains to
the acquisition of lands of Village Bhuri, Taluka Manavadar,
District Junagadh. The aforesaid acquisition was for the
public purpose of the construction of the said Junagadh -
Manavadar road.
12. During the course of hearing, learned advocate
Mr. Kunal Shah appearing for the applicants, under
instructions, has not pressed the aforesaid applications, as he
has conceded that the aforesaid instances are post facto
notification in the present case. Learned advocate Mr. Kunal
Shah appearing for the appellants has therefore submitted
that he challenges the impugned judgment and award mainly
on the ground that the Reference Court has without
assigning any reasons has applied 50% deduction as against
the sale price of the document produced at Exh.-18. The
attention of this Court was invited to the findings and
reasons recorded which has been reproduced in the present
order.
13. The Court having examined the aforesaid findings and
reasons has noticed that no valid reasons has been assigned
by the Reference Court to apply 50% deduction to the sale
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
price of the exemplar as relied upon for the determination of
market value of the land acquired. The learned advocate was
therefore called upon to establish the case of claimants with
regard to no deduction to be made as contended by him in
the present appeals. Learned advocate had invited attention
of this Court to the evidence of one of the original claimant
who had been examined at Exh.-52. While referring to his
cross-examination, learned advocate had pointed out that the
acquired lands of village Sherdi are well developed as against
the exemplar relied upon at Exh.-18. The attention of this
court was further invited to the copy of the order dated
03.08.1991 of the Collector, Junagadh whereby the State had
agreed to sell the land of Village Sardargadh, Taluka
Manavadar, District Junagadh to GETCO. It was submitted
that in fact the acquired land was a gauchar land, therefore
at the best, it could be treated as non-irrigated land though
the land was to be allotted for the purpose of construction of
premises for GETCO. By comparing the aforesaid exemplar
with the acquired lands, it was submitted that no deduction
was required to be applied for the purpose of determination
of additional amount of compensation. In support of his
submission, learned advocate had relied upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwathula
Samanna Vs. Special Tahsildar And Land Acquisition Officer,
Visakhapatnam Municipality 1991(4) SCC 506. Learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
advocate had further pointed out that having treated the
aforesaid exemplar as the best examplar and noticing the gap
of 14 years between the date of the order in case of the
land allotted for GETCO as against the date of Section 4
notification in case of acquired lands, the learned judge has
applied 10% rise every year. He has therefore urged this
court to pass appropriate orders of enhancing the amount of
compensation.
14. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manohar
Rahevar appearing for the respondent State authorities has
objected to the aforesaid submissions of learned advocate for
the appellant by contending that the learned Judge has
rightly applied 50% deduction looking to the purpose for
which the lands were acquired as against the developed land
being allotted by the Collector to the GETCO. This court had
inquired from learned AGP as to whether any appeal has
been preferred by the State to which the learned AGP, under
instructions, submitted that State has not challenged the
impugned judgment and award. Learned AGP has relied upon
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Central Warehousing Corporation Vs. Thakur Dwara Kalan
U1-maruf Baraglan Wala (Dead) & Ors. reported in 2023 (14)
Scale 620, to draw attention of this court to the legal
position wherein case of gap of more than 11 years between
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
two instances, the court has considered 8% rise to be the
reasonable standard to be applied.
15. At this stage, learned advocate appearing for the
original claimant had also referred to the aforesaid judgment
and had also placed on record the judgment of this Court in
the case of General Manager Vs. Thakor Jenaji Maganji
reported in 2024 GUJHC 66685, following the aforesaid
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and had urged to
consider 8% rise with cumulative effect as against the
additional amount of compensation which may be determined
by this court in the present appeal.
16. Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties and having
perused the impugned judgment and award in light of the
evidence placed for consideration in the original proceedings,
indisputably, the lands of the claimants have been acquired
for the public purpose. The claimants are entitled to seek
enhancement of the amount of compensation. The burden to
prove their case for entitlement of additional amount of
compensation is on the claimant. There is no dispute on the
aspect that the allotment of the Government waste land by
the Collector, Junagadh for GETCO produced at Exh.-18 is
treated as the best exemplar for the purpose of determination
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
of additional amount of compensation, rightly pointed out by
learned advocate, the reference Court has failed to assign any
valid reasons to arrive at a deduction of 50% as can be
noticed from the findings and reasons recorded in the
impugned judgment. The only limited question which falls for
consideration before this Court in the present appeal is
therefore the rate of deduction being applied by the reference
Court on the aforesaid amount. It is a settled legal position
that the principle of deduction in the value of land, while
determining the market value of acquired land, the Courts
are expected to take into consideration two essential
components. First, the area required to be utilized for
development works and the second is the expenses towards
the development works. The fixing of market value of the
large property on the basis of sale transaction, for small
property, generally the deduction is given taking into
consideration the expenses required for development of large
track as compared to smaller plots within that area in order
to compare it with the smaller plots dealt with under the
sale transaction. The percentage of 'deduction for development'
made at the market-value of the large tracks of undeveloped
agricultural land with reference to the sale price of small
developed plots, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Lal Chand Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in (2009) 15
SCC 769 has held that the same varies from 20% to 25% of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
the price of such developed plots, the percentage depending
upon the nature of development of the lay out in which the
exemplar plot is situated. Upon over all appreciation of the
documentary evidence placed for consideration in light of the
evidence of the witnesses, it is noticed that the land of
village Sardargadh was a gauchar land which was later on
forming part of Gaamtal land. The land was therefore falling
within the limits of Panchayat. It appears that the land was
divested from the holding of the Panchayat in as much as
the order of allotment has been passed by the Collector
offering the land at sale price of Rs.6,19,440/- i.e. at the rate
of Rs.135.60 ps. per sq. meter. The date of the order of such
allotment is 03.08.1991. It also transpires from the order that
the land was allotted for the purpose of construction of
premises to be used by GETCO and accordingly the price
was determined. The aforesaid factors indicates that the land
at Sardargadh was also a gauchar waste land however the
advantage can be extended as amount of smallness of size
and its situation in Gaamtal and therefore subjected to
deduction. In the opinion of this Court, 20% deduction the
aforesaid sale value of the instance produced at Exh.-18
would be reasonable to be applied in case of acquired lands.
Hence, the present appeal succeeds on the aforesaid issue.
17. This brings me to the second contention with regard to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
the annual rise to be considered. Indisputably, the notification
in case of acquired lands under Section 4 was issued on
21.06.2005 whereas the instance which is stated as best
exemplar produced at Exh.-118 is an order dated 03.08.1991.
It is rightly noticed by learned Judge that there is gap of 14
years between the aforesaid two instances. The learned Judge
has applied 10% annual rise for determination of additional
amount of compensation of the acquired lands, however in
light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Central Warehousing (supra), it would be appropriate
to consider 8% annual rise with cumulative effect for the
purpose of determination of additional amount of
compensation. Thus, applying 20% deduction (Rs.7.12) for the
development charges from the base value of Rs.35.60 ps. per
sq. meter it comes to Rs.28.48 ps. per sq. meter.
18. In light of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Central Warehousing Corporation (supra),
considering the gap of more than 10 years i.e. 14 years in
the present case, the 8% cumulative rise has to be applied
on the aforesaid value to determine the additional amount of
compensation of the acquired lands, which comes to
Rs.83.16 per sq. mtrs. for non-irrigated lands, for irrigated
lands applying 50% to the aforesaid value comes to Rs.124.74
per sq. mtrs. (83.16 + 41.58) for irrigated lands. Since the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1696/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/01/2025
undefined
reference court has determined the additional amount of
compensation for non-irrigated land @ Rs.43.00 ps. per sq.
meters, the same is modified to the extent of Rs. 64.50 per
sq. meters. for the irrigated land. Similarly, in case of non-
irrigated lands, the additional amount of compensation is
modified to the extent of Rs.60.24 (124.74-64.50) per sq.
meters.
19. In light of the submission made by learned advocate
having not pressed the civil applications for additional
documents, the captioned civil applications for production of
additional documents stands disposed of as not pressed. The
First Appeals are hereby allowed to the aforesaid extent.
No order as to costs.
20. In view of the enhancement of the additional amount of
compensation, the respondent - State authorities are directed
to deposit such enhanced amount of compensation preferably
within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of this order.
21. Registry is directed to sent back the Record and
Proceedings forthwith to the concerned Reference Court.
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
MAYA
