Gujarat High Court
Deputy Collector Land Acquistion And ... vs Harijan Savanbhai Jodhabhai on 8 July, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2844/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2844 of 2019
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 330 of 2023
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2844 of 2019
==========================================================
DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISTION AND REHABILITATION
OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
HARIJAN SAVANBHAI JODHABHAI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MAHESH P PATEL(3381) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS FORAM TRIVEDI, LEARNED AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 08/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. Captioned appeal is directed against the judgment dated
07.04.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at
Deodar in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.69/2017 to 74/2017.
2. Mr. Jinesh H. Kapadiya, learned advocate, submitted that vide
oral order dated 15.02.2024 passed by this Court, the appeals arising
out of Land Acquisition Reference Case No.69/2017 and other allied
matters, have been decided and the present appeal, pertains to Land
Acquisition Reference Case No.70/2017 and would be governed by the
said judgment, it having been left out. Ms. Foram Trivedi, learned
Assistant Government Pleader, has placed on record the oral order
dated 15.02.2024 passed in R/First Appeal No.671/2019 and other
allied matters including R/First Appeal Nos.2843 of 2019, 2845 of 2019
to 2847 of 2019. It is urged that the captioned appeal being R/First
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2844/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
Appeal No.2844/2019 has been left out. The decision, of the Division
Bench, would cover the captioned appeal as well.
3. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties
and perused the documents made available on record.
4. The land, has been acquired for the public purpose of spreading
canals of Sujalam Sufalam. After issuing Section 4 notification and
Section 6 notification, the acquisition proceedings, culminated into
passing of the award dated 28.03.2005 by the Land Acquisition &
Rehabilitation Officer under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1894"). Six
land reference cases, came to be registered being Land Acquisition
Reference Case Nos.69/2017 to 74/2017 including Land Acquisition
Reference Case No.70/2017. All the Land Acquisition Reference Cases,
were decided by the common judgment dated 07.04.2018 against
which, the State, has preferred R/First Appeal Nos.2843/2019 to
2847/2019. So far as R/First Appeal Nos.2843/2019, 2845/2019 to
2847/2019 are concerned, it came to be decided by the Division Bench
of this Court vide oral order dated 15.02.2024. Subsequently, note for
speaking to minutes came to be filed which, came to be allowed by
order dated 19.04.2024. The oral judgment dated 15.02.2024 read with
order dated 19.04.2024 reads thus:
"1. All these First Appeals arise out of respective land reference cases which
were decided by the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Deesa.
2. Facts in brief would indicate that the lands of the original claimants were
acquired for a public purpose of spreading canal of Sujalam Sufalam by
issuing notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act. The Land
Acquisition Officer by the award determined the market value of the land
acquired at Rs.8.50 per square meters. On the claimants filing applications
for enhancing, the Reference Court partly allowed the references and
determined the market value of the land under acquisition at Rs.333.50 per
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2844/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
square meters. These appeals have been preferred by the State of Gujarat
for quashing the judgement and award of the Reference Court, whereas, the
original claimants have filed cross-objections for enhancement of the claim.
3. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respective parties that for
the same village and the acquisition process, this Court decided a group of
appeals and cross objections viz. First Appeal No.669 of 2019 and allied
matters. After considering the evidence on record which is the same as the
one in the present cases and after setting out in detail various decisions of
the Supreme Court, a Division Bench of this Court by its CAV judgement
dated 18.12.2023 held as under:
"14. We have considered the ratio laid down and the principle enunciated
in the aforesaid decisions. It is found out that the principles governing
determination of market value of lands acquired are well- settled and at
the time of determination of the compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court issued certain directions as regard the the methods of valuation to
be considered i.e. (1) opinion of experts, (2) the prices paid within a
reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase or sale of the lands
acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing
similar advantages and (3) a number of years' purchase of the actual or
immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Therefore valuation
made by the Valuation Committee can be a valid basis for the Reference
Court in deciding the valuation of the land for the purpose of awarding
compensation, subject to any change in the nature of the land, character
etc. If the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court is
examined in light of the aforesaid observations and discussions, it
appears to us that there is no error committed by the Reference Court in
relying upon the price fixed for allotment of the land for the public purpose
of Spreading Canal of Sujalam Safalam, but the Reference Court has
committed error in not considering the aspect that the valuation as was
made of the land in question on 20.05.2004 and the said valuation is to be
considered, keeping in view the principles, as observed herein above and
the Reference Court has also totally lost sight of in not considering the
deduction to be made in the nature of the land allotted for non-agricultural
purpose and the acquisition of agricultural land in the present case.
15. From the facts of the case, as stated above, it is found out that it is the
case of the original claimants that the Valuation Committee has fixed the
valuation of the Government land on 20.05.2004, whereas the Notification
under Section 4 of the Act was published on 30.06.2004 i.e. after the
fixation of the valuation of the land by the Valuation Committee and,
hence, they are entitled foradditional compensation, for which, reliance is
put upon the decision of this Court in case of Patel Haribhai Manilal
(supra) as well as in case of Amaji Mohanji Thakore (supra) and though
the aforesaid facts have been pointed out before the Reference Court, it
has not been considered and 40% deduction was made instead of 20@,
which the original claimants are entitled for. We have gone through the
record and proceeding and found out that the Reference Court has
considered the report dated 20.05.2004 of the Valuation Committee. It is
found out that the Reference Court has correctly evaluated the the report
of the Valuation Committee but at the time of considering the amount,
40% amount is deducted from the said amount mentioned in the report
solely on the count that in identical matter in case of Sardar Sarovar
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2844/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
Narmada Nigam Ltd. delivered in First Appeal Nos.2832 to 2843 of 2006,
the Division Bench of this Court has deducted 40% amount from the price
fixed by the competent authority. It is found out from the record that in the
said matter, the acquired land was situated inoutskirt of the city area,
whereas the present land, which is acquired by the acquiring body, is
situated within the center of the city and as per the evidence led by the
original claimants, surrounding and vicinity area of the acquired land is
well developed area and in future, the Government need not have to
spend any amount for the development of the said area, therefore, basic
price value of the said land is on higher side, therefore, the deduction is
required to be made 20% instead of 40%. We have gone through the
record and proceedings and found out that the land, which was acquired
by the acquiring body, issmall plot and situated within the center of the
city, therefore, we are of the opinion that the original claimants are entitled
for 20% deduction instead of 40% deduction.
16. We have considered the report of the District Valuation Committee,
village : Lakhani dated 20.05.2004 produced on record at Exhs.40 & 41
i.e. as well as the Map of village produced on record. It is found out from
the aforesaid documents that the price of the land of land bearing Survey
No.152 pk. has been evaluated and fixed at Rs.570/- per sq.mtr. and
Sujalam Safalam Canal passesthrough land bearing Survey Nos.153 &
211 pk. and the said lands are situated adjacent to the land owned by the
original claimants. It is also found out from the record that the lands
owned by the original claimants are situated within well developed area,
which would reduce the expenditure behind the development and,
therefore after acquiring the said land, the Government need not have to
spend money for its development. Thus considering the above facts of the
case on hand, the original claimants are entitled for deduction of 20%
instead of 40%, which has been done in the present case.
17. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that we have also gone through the
impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Reference Court
including the finding given and conclusion arrived at by the learned
Reference Court and found that except deduction of 40% instead of 20%,
there is no error committed by the learned Reference Court, which would
require interference from this Court. Hence, rest of the impugned
judgment and award remain unaltered.
18. Therefore in view of the aforesaid observations made, First Appeals
filed by the State of Gujarat are hereby dismissed. Whereas Cross
Objections filed by the original claimants are allowed as prayed for.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and award dated 22.09.2017 passed
by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa in Land Acquisition
Reference Nos.26 to 31 of 2005 is hereby modified to the extent that
instead of compensation at Rs.333.50, which is already awarded by the
Reference Court, the original claimants are entitled to get additional
compensation at Rs.114/- per Sq.Mtr i.e. total compensation at Rs.456/-.
Rest of the observation and direction would remain unaltered. Decree to
be drawn accordingly. Record & Proceedings are sent back forthwith.
19. Connected application, if any, stands disposed of."
4. For the aforesaid reasons, which have been set out herein above in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2844/2019 ORDER DATED: 08/07/2025
undefined
aforesaid First Appeal, the First Appeals filed by the State are dismissed.
Cross-objections filed by the original claimants are allowed. The respective
impugned judgements and awards passed in the respective land reference
cases are hereby modified to the extent that instead of compensation at
Rs.333.50, which is already awarded by the Reference Court, the original
claimants are hereby held entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.114/-
per square meter i.e. total compensation of Rs.456/- per square meter for
their respective acquired land along with all statutory benefits and interest
after adjustment of the amount already received by the claimants. Such
statutory benefit accrued shall be as per the rate prescribed under Section 34
of the Act, for the period from the date of passing of the award by the
Reference Court under Section 18 of the Act till the filing of the respective
First Appeals before this Court. It is further directed that the enhanced
compensation shall be deposited with the Nazir of concerned Court within
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and on deposit of
such amount, the same is directed to be disburse and paid to respective
claimants on due verification of their identity by account payee cheque.
5. Order accordingly."
5. It is not in dispute and fairly conceded by the learned advocates
that the captioned appeal, is a left out matter; arising out of Land
Acquisition Reference No.70/2014 and therefore, the captioned appeal,
shall also be governed by the above referred judgment. Therefore, the
respondent, is directed to deposit the enhanced compensation with the
Nazir of the concerned Court within a period of 8 weeks from the date of
receipt of the copy of this order. On deposit of such amount, it is
directed to be disbursed and paid to the respective claimants upon due
and proper verification of their identity by the account payee cheque.
6. In view of the above, First Appeal succeeds and is allowed
accordingly. No order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
HARSHIT
