Gujarat High Court

General Manager vs Deceased Kureshi Aebnabu Bhikumiya ... on 28 July, 2025

                                                                                                               NEUTRAL CITATION




                            C/FA/4426/2008                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025

                                                                                                               undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4426 of 2008
                                                             With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4430 of 2008


                       FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
                       ==========================================================

                                     Approved for Reporting                  Yes           No

                       ==========================================================
                                          GENERAL MANAGER
                                                Versus
                       DECEASED KURESHI AEBNABU BHIKUMIYA THRO.HIS LEGAL HEIRS. &
                                                ORS.
                       ==========================================================
                       Appearance:
                       AISHWARYA REDDY(9713) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       GUPTA LAW ASSOCIATES(9818) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
                       for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 2
                       RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1
                       ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK

                                                         Date : 28/07/2025

                                                    COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1. All these appeals involve common questions on law

and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this

common judgment.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4426/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025

undefined

2. These appeals have been filed against the common

judgment and award passed by the learned Principal

District Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference

Nos.614/2001 and 501/2001 dated 31.03.2008, whereby,

the references were partly allowed and the appellant

ONGC was held liable to pay additional amount of

compensation to the original claimants along with

interest and costs.

3. The facts in brief are that the competent authority

under the Land Acquisition Act made a proposal for

temporary acquisition of the lands belonging to the

respondent original claimant situated on the outskirts of

Village - Nandasan of Kadi Taluka, District - Mehsana for

public purpose. After following due procedure, the lands

came to be acquired. Award came to be passed by the

competent authority fixing the amount of compensation.

4. However, being dissatisfied with the award, the

original claimant raised dispute, by way of references.

The reference Court partly allowed the same by way of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4426/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025

undefined

the impugned judgment and award and awarded

Rs.6.50 p.s. per Sq. Meter. Hence, these appeals.

5. The main contention raised by the appellant

Corporation is that the reference Court has not

appreciated the law governing the subject, more

particularly, Section 35 of the Land Acquisition Act in its

proper perspective. It has been submitted that the

reference Court has also lost sight of several other

important factors while awarding additional

compensation. Further, the reference applications ought

not to have been entertained on the ground of limitation

since the same were filed after considerable delay from

the date of taking over of the possession and the

impugned award. It is, therefore, submitted that the

impugned award passed by the reference Court deserves

to be quashed and set aside.

6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

perused the documents on record. The issue regarding

grant of future rent came up for consideration of this

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4426/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025

undefined

Court earlier in a group of appeals being First Appeal

No.792/2003 & allied matters. The said group of appeals

came to be disposed of by this Court vide judgment and

order dated 21.03.2006. Relevant portion of the said

judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference;

"5.2 On the facts of the case, it is evident that the Reference Court has also determined the further rent which issue was not before it. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the contention raised by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the observation or direction issued by the Reference Court in the operative part of the orders require to be quashed and set aside, is required to be accepted. If the said direction is allowed to remain then it would amount to granting the rent whichis over the rent fixed by the appellantO.N.G.C. from time to time. Moreover, the same has been fixed without considering as to what would be the future rent fixed by the appellant O.N.G.C, which is beyond the scope of reference. Hence if the said observation is allowed to remain then, in that event such compensation would be much more than the amount which has been found to be adequate by the Court.

5.3 It may be noted that the Reference Court was dealing with a particular acquisition and it was not open for the said Court to pass an order in respect of future rent. Such an observation on the part of the Reference Court is clearly bad in law in view of the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Act. In that view of the matter, the observations or direction issued by the Reference Court with regard to additional amount of compensation, requires to be quashed and set aside.

6.0 In the result, these appeals are allowed. The observation "over the rent fixed by O.N.G.C. from time to time with the running interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of due date of running till the day of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4426/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025

undefined

payment is made", made by the Reference Court in the operative part of the impugned judgments and awards, is quashed and set aside. These appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs."

7. From the above order passed by this Court, it is clear

that while considering an application u/s. 35(3) of the said

Act, the reference Court is not empowered to pass an

order in respect of future rent. In other words, the

reference Court has no jurisdiction to grant additional

amount of compensation while dealing with an

application u/s.35(3) of the said Act.

8. It is pertinent to note that challenge to the impugned

award was made after several years. Looking to the facts

and circumstances of the case, it would be beneficial to

refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Oil &

Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Sankarji Hemaji,

2008 (2) G.L.R. 1226, more particularly, on the

observations made in Para-42 therein, which reads as

under;

"42. For the reasons stated hereinabove, all the appeals succeed and are allowed with costs which is quantified at Rs.5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) per each appeal. The impugned common judgement and award

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4426/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025

undefined

dtd. 15/10/2005 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana (Mr.J.R. Shah) in Land Reference Case Nos.3780 to 3784 of 2003 is hereby quashed and set aside and it is held that :

(i) The reference applications submitted by the original claimants were not maintainable.

(ii)The reference applications were required to be dismissed on the ground of limitation considering Article 137 of the Limitation Act. In the alternate, the same were required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

(iii)The reference court has no power, authority, competence and/or jurisdiction to decide the dispute dehors the reference made to him.

(iv)The reference court has no jurisdiction to decide any other question except the difference as to sufficiency of compensation in a reference under sec.35(3) of the Act.

(v) The reference court has no jurisdiction to declare acquisition proceedings and the award declared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer under sec.35(3) of the Act as illegal and/or nonest in a reference under sec.35(3) of the Act.

(vi)The reference court has no jurisdiction to declare possession of the acquiring body as illegal and/or unauthorised and consequently the reference court has no jurisdiction to declare the ONGC - acquiring body as trespasser that too without framing any issue.

(vii)The reference court has no jurisdiction to award compensation by way of mesne profit declaring compensation of the acquiring body as illegal and unauthorised.

(viii)The reference court has also no jurisdiction to award statutory benefits and/or interest, as awarded by the reference court, as if the acquisition proceedings is a permanent acquisition.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4426/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 28/07/2025

undefined

(ix)The reference court has no jurisdiction to determine the dispute with regard to sufficiency of the compensation beyond the period of three years from the date of taking the possession.

(x) The Reference Court has no jurisdiction to restore the possession of the land to the original owners while deciding the reference under sec.35(3) of the Act."

9. As can be seen that in the above decision of this Court,

it has been categorically held that the reference Court

has no power to decide the dispute dehors the reference

nor it has jurisdiction to determine the dispute with

regard to sufficiency of compensation beyond three years.

It has also been further held therein that the reference

Court cannot restore the possession of land while

deciding the reference u/s.35(3) of the said Act.

10. On the facts of the present case and in view of the

principle laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in

O.N.G.C. v. Sankarji Hemaji's case (supra), I am of

the view that the impugned award passed by the