Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Ravdan Fatesang on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1639 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1640 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1642 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1643 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
Versus
RAVDAN FATESANG
================================================================
Appearance:
MS ROSHNI PATEL, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2,3
MR PARV S GUPTA(11850) for the Appellant(s) No. 3
MR KM SHETH(838) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 10/07/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. All these appeals involve common questions on law
and facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this
common judgment treating the First Appeal No. 1639 of
2013 as lead matter.
2. Present appeals are fled by the appellants under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act r/w Section 96 of
the Indian Penal Code challenging the common judgement
and award dated 12.12.2012 passed by the learned
Principal Sr. Civil Judge, Bharuch in L.A.R. Nos.118 of 2010
to 124 of 2010. Present appeals pertain to L.A.R. Nos. 120
of 2010, 121 of 2010, 123 of 2010 and 124 of 2010.
3. In view of the fact that First Appeal No. 1639 of 2013
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
Sardarpura, Tal. Jambusar, Dist. Bharuch for the public
purpose i.e. for the construction of Sardarpura branch
minor 2 canal under Narmada Project and accordingly the
land was acquired. The notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act was published on 08.12.2005 and
Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on
01.02.2007.
3.1 Thereafter, Special Land Acquisition Officer had
passed award on 23.10.2008 in LAQ case No. 9 of 2005
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
awarding compensation for the acquired lands at the rate
of Rs.226.68ps. per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated lands.
3.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same the
claimants have filed Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.
118 of 2010 to 124 of 2010 before the Reference Court
whereby the Reference Court has awarded Rs.226.68ps.
per sq. mtr. with 12% interest p.a. 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.K. M. Sheth for the respondent -
claimant.
5. Ms. Patel, 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
respondents-claimants to raise the contention that the
appeals were not decided on merits.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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. Sheth, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of the respondent - original claimant
has submitted that the First Appeals preferred by the
State relating to the same village Sardarpura, where petty
claim was involved, are already settled in Lok Adalat on
14.03.2015, 12.12.2016 and 12.11.2016 and the appellant
State has accepted the award passed by the Reference
Court and therefore, now they cannot argue the matter on
merits.
6.1 Mr. Sheth, learned counsel for the respondent has
submitted that so far as present appeals are concerned
additional amount is awarded @ Rs.226.68ps. per sq. mtr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
in addition to the amount which was awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer and according to learned
counsel for the respondent since the additional amount
awarded was exceeding of Rs.5,00,000/- and therefore,
present appeals have been filed. He would submit that the
State has taken decision either not to file an appeal or
having filed an appeal but not to contest the same in
cases of the very selfsame group the State Government
may not be permitted to adopt the policy of pick and
choose.
6.2 Mr. Sheth, 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.,
reported in [2023] LiveLaw SC 312, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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
Court and considering the submissions on behalf of
learned advocates, since the appellant has accepted he
award passed by the Reference Court and settled the
matters in Lok Adalat, 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1639/2013 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
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 are hereby dismissed. It
is clarified that present order shall not be treated as
precedent in any other matter.
9. The amount deposited by the appellant - State shall
be disbursed in favour of respective respondents - original
claimants 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.
10. Record and proceedings if received, be sent back to
the concerned Reference Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
