Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Joshi Durgaben Prahaladbhai on 25 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 152 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 150 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 154 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 157 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 158 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
JOSHI DURGABEN PRAHALADBHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, 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. All these appeals involve common questions on law and
facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common
judgment treating the First Appeal No. 152 of 2016 as
lead matter.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
2. Present appeals are fled by the appellant under Section
54 of the Land Acquisition Act r/w Section 96 of the
Indian Penal Code challenging the common judgement
and award dated 01.04.2013 passed by the learned 4 th
Additional Sr. Civil Judge, Mehsana in L.A.R. Nos.431 of
2011 to 440 of 2011 and 473 of 2011. Present appeals
pertain to L.A.R. Nos. 473 of 2011, 439 of 2011, 432 of
2011, 435 of 2011 and 436 of 2011 respectively.
3. In view of the fact that First Appeal No. 152 of 2016 is
treated as lead matter, facts mentioned in the said First
Appeal are considered. It is the case of the appellant that
the State has acquired the land situated at village
Shankhalpura, Tal. Becharaji, Dist. Mehsana for the
public purpose i.e. for the construction of Manvada
Distributary Canal of Narmada Project and accordingly
the land was acquired. The notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act was published on 22.02.2006
and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published
on 06.07.2006.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
3.1 Thereafter, Special Land Acquisition Officer had
passed award on 24.04.2008 in LAQ case No. 12 of 2005
awarding compensation for the acquired lands at the rate
of Rs.7/- per sq. mtr. for the acquired lands.
3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the
claimants have filed Land Acquisition Reference Case
Nos. 473 of 2011, 439 of 2011, 432 of 2011, 435 of 2011
and 436 of 2011 respectively, before the Reference Court
whereby, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.393.20ps.
per sq. mtr. with solatium at 30%, additional market
value @ 12% and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of
taking possession till one year and thereafter, at the rate
of 15% p.a. till its realization. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the same, the State has preferred
present appeals.
4. Heard learned AGP Ms.Roshni Patel for the appellant
and learned Advocate Mr. A.V. Prajapati for the
respondents - claimants.
5. Ms. Patel, learned AGP for the appellant-State has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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 respondents-claimants to raise the contention that the
appeals were not decided on merits.
5.1 Ms. Patel, 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.
6. As against that, Mr.Prajapati, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondents - original
claimants has raised an objection with regard to
considering the First Appeal on its merits. Learned
Advocate has submitted that as such, the impugned
judgement and award was passed in a common group of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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.
6.1 Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the respondents-
claimants, has submitted that other group of appeals
arising from the same acquisition being First Appeal
Nos.149 of 2016, 151 of 2016 and 153 of 2016 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 pick and choose.
6.2 Mr. Prajapati, learned counsel for the respondents-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
claimants 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
permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other
claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent
discrimination."
7. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
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 claimants
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.
8. In view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court and in view of the facts narrated herein above, I am
of the opinion that the present First Appeals 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/152/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/07/2025
undefined
9. The amount deposited by the appellant - State shall
be disbursed in favour of respondents - claimants after
following due procedure through R.T.G.S. / N.E.F.T.
within 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
