Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Patel Chandubhai Laxmanbhai on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1947/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1947 of 2014
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
PATEL CHANDUBHAI LAXMANBHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MS AGNEYA MANKAD, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 25/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeal is fled by the appellant under Section
54 of the Land Acquisition Act r/w Section 96 of the
Indian Penal Code challenging the judgement and award
dated 04.01.2014 passed by the learned Principal Sr. Civil
Judge, Kadi in L.A.R. No.503 of 2013.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the
State has acquired the land situated at village
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1947/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Sankhalpur, Tal. Bechraji, Dist. Mehsana for the public
purpose i.e. for the construction of Manawada
Sankhalpur-2 Minor Canal under Narmada Project and
accordingly, the land was acquired. The notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
published on 30.06.2007 and declaration under Section 6
of the Act was published on 23.09.2008.
2.1 Thereafter, Special Land Acquisition Officer had
passed award on 25.06.2010 in LAQ case No. 76 of 2006
awarding compensation for the acquired lands at the rate
of Rs.7/- per sq. mtr. for the acquired lands.
2.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the
claimant has filed Land Acquisition Reference Case No.
503 of 2013 before the Reference Court whereby, the
Reference Court has awarded Rs.438.62ps. per sq. mtr.
with 12% interest p.a. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the same, the State has preferred the present
appeal.
3. Heard learned AGP Ms. Agneya Mankad for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1947/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
appellant and learned Advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati for the
respondent - claimant.
4. Ms. Mankad, learned AGP for the appellant-State has
contended that similarly situated respondents, against
whom the State has preferred an appeal, some of the
appeals have been settled before the Lok Adalat and
therefore, under such circumstances, it is not open for
the respondent-claimant to raise the contention that the
appeals were not decided on merits.
4.1 Ms. Mankad, learned AGP has submitted that the
Reference Court has committed an error in exercising the
jurisdiction, which is not vested in it by law. She has also
submitted that the Reference Court has committed an
error in awarding the additional compensation on higher,
side, over and above the compensation already awarded
by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
5. As against that, Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondent-claimant has
raised an objection with regard to considering the First
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1947/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
Appeal on its merits. Learned Advocate has submitted
that as such, the impugned judgement and award was
passed in a common group of LAR cases and whereas
according to the learned advocate, in some of the LARs,
the appellant State either did not file any appeal or
having filed appeals, have not contested the same more
particularly since, as per the policy of the State
Government, any amount awarded less than Rs.5,00,000/-
would be treated as a petty claim, against which no
appeal is required to be filed or to be heard on merits.
5.1 Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the respondent-
claimant, has submitted that other group of appeals
arising from the same acquisition being First Appeal
Nos.1945 of 2014, 1946 of 2014, 1948 of 2014, 1949 of
2014 and 1950 of 2014 have been settled in the Lok
Adalat on the ground of petty claim, whereby, the State
has already accepted the award passed by the Reference
Court and now it is not fair on the part of the appellant
State to argue the present appeal on merits and the State
Government may not be permitted to adopt the policy of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1947/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
pick and choose.
5.2 Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel for the respondent has
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
case of Shivappa Etc. Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer &
Ors., in Civil Appeal Nos.2694-2700 of 2023, wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court had inter alia observed that in a
similar situation, where group of appeals were preferred
against a common judgement and award, and whereas
the State Government had withdrawn some of the
appeals, therefore, the State Government could not be
permitted to contest the other appeals. Relevant
observations at paragraphs 9 to 11 are reproduced herein
below for benefits:-
"9. In the said case also, the Reference Court had
granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250/- per
acre. The High Court, vide order dated 8.3.2016 has
allowed the said appeal(s) to be withdrawn and the same
had been placed on record before this Court in I. A.
No.59170 of 2016. Though a period of more than six
years had lapsed, the said position is not contested by
the respondents.
10. The State or its instrumentalities cannot be
permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose.
11. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference
Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1947/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other
claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent
discrimination."
6. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and considering the submissions on behalf of
learned advocates, since the appellant does not dispute
the fact that the appellant either, after having preferred
appeals in other LAR Cases, had withdrawn some of them
as the claim as per the Circular was petty claim and
thereafter, merely on account of the fact that the
additional amount awarded to the present claimant
exceeds the cut-off for a petty claim, the State
Government would not be permitted to question the
same, more particularly since the State has accepted the
very same award of the learned Reference Court with
regard to other claimants. As observed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court, such an attitude would smack of patent
discrimination and cannot be countenanced.
7. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and in view of the facts narrated herein above, I am
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1947/2014 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
of the opinion that the present First Appeal may not be
permitted to be contested and is hereby dismissed. It is
clarified that present order shall not be treated as
precedent in any other matter.
8. The amount deposited by the appellant - State shall
be disbursed in favour of respondent-claimant after
following due procedure through R.T.G.S. / N.E.F.T.
within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated
forthwith. Record and proceedings if received, be sent
back to the concerned Reference Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
