Gujarat High Court
General Manager vs Patel Nathubhai Savabhai Decd.Through ... on 26 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3011/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3011 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3012 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3013 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3014 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3015 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3016 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3017 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
PATEL NATHUBHAI SAVABHAI DECD.THROUGH THE LRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MOSON LE EXPARTS(11071) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AKSHAT KHARE(5912) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DEVANSHIBA RANA AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 2
MR AV PRAJAPATI for the Defendant(s) No.1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 26/06/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. All these appeals involve common questions on law and
facts and therefore, they are disposed of by this common
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3011/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
judgment.
2. These appeals have been filed against the common
judgment and award dated 25.01.2008 passed by the
learned Additional District Judge & P.O. F.T.C. No.3
Mehsana, (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference
Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.958 to 964 of
2005, whereby the References were partly allowed and
the present appellant - O.N.G.C. 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
permanent acquisition of the lands situated at village
Deloli belonging to the respondents-original claimants. In
present case notification under Section 4 was published
by the Competent Authority under the Act on 27.01.2000.
After following due procedure, the lands came to be
acquired. Award came to be passed by the competent
authority fixing the amount of compensation.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3011/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
3.1. However, being dissatisfied with the award, the
original claimants raised dispute, by way of references.
The Reference Court partly allowed the same by way of
the impugned judgment and awarded Rs.45.00 per sq.
mtr. Hence, these appeals.
4. Heard Mr. Khare, learned advocate for the appellant
and Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the claimants and
Devenshiba Rana for respondent No.2.
5. Mr.Akshat Khare, learned Counsel for the appellant-
ONGC, has submitted that the Reference Court has erred
in coming to the conclusion that the original claimants
would be entitled to additional compensation at the rate
of Rs.45/- per sq. mtr. over and above Rs.14/- per sq. mtr.
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Learned
advocate for the appellant further submitted that the
Reference Court ought to have held that the Land
Acquisition Officer has rightly awarded the compensation.
5.1 Learned advocate for the appellant has also submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3011/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
that the judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court is not based on any cogent and reliable evidence. It
is also submitted that the Reference Court has committed
error in relying upon the award passed by the Reference
Court in some other LAR cases of some other village
without comparing similarity between the land as to the
fertility, productivity and other development in the
surrounding areas and therefore, the impugned judgment
and awards passed by the Reference Court deserve
interference by this Court.
5.2 Mr. Khare, learned Advocate for the appellant has
relied upon the map which shows the distance between
Deloli and Balol and distance between Deloli and
Gamanpura and the order passed by this Court in respect
of village Gamanpura.
5.3 Learned advocate for the appellant urges before the
Court that present appeals may be allowed and the
impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court may be quashed and set aside.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3011/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
6. On the other hand, Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned
Advocate for the respondents has submitted that the
Reference Court after perusing the evidence on record
passed the award and therefore, the award of the
Reference Court is just and proper and no interference is
called for. Mr. Prajapati, learned Advocate, has also
submitted that the Reference Court has not committed
any error in passing the impugned judgment and award.
6.1 Mr. Prajapati, learned Advocate, has submitted that
considering the facts of the case and after going through
all the relevant documents and material produced before
the Reference Court, the Reference Court has passed the
impugned judgment and award which is just and proper
and this Court may not interfere in present appeals and
impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference
Court may be confirmed.
7. I have gone through the record of the appeals and
relevant documents. I have also examined the record and
proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3011/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
8. From the plain reading of the judgment of this Court
dated 29.08.2011 passed in First Appeal Nos. 2794 of
2008 to 2797 of 2008 for village Gamanpura, it is clear
that the present First Appeals relate to the village Deloli,
which is adjacent to village Gamanpura and this Court
has already decided the market value of the said village
and therefore, it will be appropriate, to dispose of all
these appeals on the same terms. In the said adjoining
village Gamanpura, this Court has already considered the
market value @ Rs.36/- per sq. mtr. as on Section-4
Notification dated 25.4.1997 and therefore, in present
appeals, same market value is required to be awarded.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case
and in view of decision of this Court in First Appeal No.
2794 to 2797 of 2008, I am of the opinion that the
compensation awarded by the Reference Court in the
above First Appeals is required to be considered as best
example.
11. In the decision in case of Gamanpura, relied upon by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3011/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 26/06/2025
undefined
learned advocate for the appellant, Notification under
Section 4 was published on 25.04.1997 and this Court
awarded Rs.36/- per sq. mtr. whereas in present case,
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on
27.01.2000 and therefore, by giving 10% price
adjustment for 2 years and 9 months, the market rate
value would come to Rs. 45.90 per sq. mtr.. Since, the
Reference Court has already awarded Rs.45.00 per sq.
mtr., no interference is required to be called for in
present First Appeals.
12. In view of the above, present appeals are devoid of
any merits and the same are hereby dismissed. No order
as to costs.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
