Gujarat High Court
Deputy Collector Land Acquistion And ... vs Harijan Kesharbhai Ravabahi on 5 May, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2848 of 2019
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 360 of 2023
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2848 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2849 of 2019
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 361 of 2023
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2849 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2850 of 2019
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 362 of 2023
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2850 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2851 of 2019
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 363 of 2023
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2851 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2852 of 2019
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 364 of 2023
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2852 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISTION AND REHABILITATION
OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
HARIJAN KESHARBHAI RAVABAHI
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by SINDHU NAIR(HC01395) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 14:31:06 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS FORAM TRIVEDI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR MAHESH P PATEL(3381) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR N P CHAUDHARY(3980) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 05/05/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 07.04.2018
passed by the learned Principal senior Civil Judge,Deodar in
Land Acquisition Reference Case No.7 of 2018 to Land
Acquisition Reference Case No.12 of 2018 (hereinafter
referred to as "the impugned judgment"), the Deputy
Collector, Land Acquisition & Rehabilitation Officer and the
Executive Engineer have preferred the captioned appeal
whereby the learned Judge has determined the additional
compensation at the rate of Rs.339.30/- per sq. mts. over and
above the market value of Rs.2.70/- per sq. mts. determined
by the Land Acquisition Officer as per the award under
section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Act of 1894").
2. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader
submitted that the impugned judgment is illegal and bad in
law, inasmuch as, the learned Judge has seriously erred in
awarding the additional compensation on higher side over and
above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
Officer vide award dated 29.11.2004. It is submitted that
disregarding the written arguments submitted, the learned
Judge, has arrived at the additional compensation, despite the
fact that each and every aspect has been minutely mentioned
in the award of the Land Acquisition Officer and considered
accordingly. It is submitted that there was adequate
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer on the
basis of the material available, namely the sale instances etc.
Even the fertility and potentiality of the land was also
considered and only thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer
was of the opinion that reasonable market value would be
Rs.2.70/- per sq. mts. It is urged that the learned Judge could
not have deviated from the market value determined by the
Land Acquisition Officer, in absence of any evidence
produced. It is urged that the appeals deserve to be allowed
and the cross objections deserve to be rejected.
3. On the other hand, Mr Jinesh Kapadia, learned Advocate
appearing with Mr Mahesh Patel, learned Advocate for the
original claimants has vehemently opposed the appeals and
supported the cross objections. It is submitted that the issue
on facts as well as on law is no longer res integra in principle.
Undisputedly, the land was acquired for the public purpose of
constructing Sujalam Sufalam Spreading Canal. In past and
around the same period, the lands of village Lakhani were
also acquired for the similar purpose. The market value was
determined relying upon the report of the District Valuation
Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the Valuation
Committee") which, has determined an amount of Rs.570/- for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
the land admeasuring 2000 sq. mts. which, was to be allotted
to BSNL. Thus, there was readily available market value
determined by the committee, consisting of the Collector, the
Town Planning Officer, who are experts in the field. More
over, the land of village Lakhani is at a distance of 2
kilometers from the land of village Ghela. It is submitted that
in one of the land reference cases, the amount determined
was on the basis of the report of the Valuation Committee and
the coordinate bench, while dismissing the appeal of the State
Government has allowed the claim of the original claimants
qua the deduction, from 40% to 20%. Therefore, the issue as
regards the additional compensation stands crystallized in
favor of the original claimants.
3.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Land
Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi Ravataji
Lumbaji passed in R/ First Appeal No. 669 of 2019 and other
allied matters. It is submitted that the principle laid down in
the said judgment applies on all fours to the facts of the
present case considering the nature of similarity of
acquisition, section 4 notification and the location of the
villages having been situated adjacent to each other. Further
reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Special Land
Acquisition Officer (Dy. Collector) & Anr. Vs. Patel Kanjibhai
Ganeshbhai passed in R/First Appeal No. 2606 of 2016 and
other allied matters. The coordinate bench has heavily placed
reliance on the judgment in the case of Land Acquisition and
Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi Ravataji Lumbaji(supra) and
applying the same has considered the additional
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
compensation at the rate of Rs. 570/-.
3.2 For the proposition that the report of the Valuation
Committee is reliable piece of evidence, reference is made to
the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat through Special
Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore
reported in 2010(3) GLH 447. It has been held and observed
that the Valuation Committee is comprising of the expert body
in the field of valuation, including the District Collector etc.
and therefore, there is no reason as to why the valuation made
by the Valuation Committee of the Government fixing of the
price for allotment of the land at the very village by way of
sale instances for allotment, should not be taken into
consideration. It is urged that when the lands are similarly
situated so also the potentiality, it is well settled that distance
between the lands would not by itself lead to a change in the
respective market value. Reliance is placed on the judgment
in the case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai & Ors. vs. Executive
Engineer, Gujarat & Anr. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 584.
3.3 Mr.Jinesh Kapadia, learned Advocate has fairly conceded
that 3% appreciation is allowed but the learned Judge has not
added in the calculation and the claimants are not pressing
considering the fact that the duration between the report of
the Valuation Committee and the section 4 notification is
hardly less than two months. It is urged that so far as 40%
deduction is concerned i.e. on a higher side and in view of the
judgment of the coordinate bench, the deduction may be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
allowed to 20% rather that 40%.
4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the
respective parties and considered the paper book made
available.
5. The land in question is acquired for the public purpose of
constructing Sujalam Sufalam Spreading Canal. The date of
publication of section 4 notification is 07.07.2004 followed by
section 6 notification on 02.11.2004. The Land Acquisition
Officer has given its award on 29.11.2004 whereby, the
additional compensation determined, was at the rate of
Rs.2.70/- per sq. mts. This award led to the filing of the
reference which culminated into the Land Acquisition
Reference Case No.7 of 2018 to Land Acquisition Reference
Case No.12 of 2018. Oral as well as documentary evidence
have been produced by and on behalf of the claimants in the
form of revenue record, certificates issued by the Talati cum
Mantri of village Ghela, certified copy of the common
judgment passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.65 of
2006 and other allied matters so also the valuation report
dated 20.05.2004 of the Valuation Committee and the certified
copy of the schedule of rates. On the other hand, the evidence
produced on behalf of the appellants include notifications
under section 4, 6, 11 and 12 etc., the statement of five years'
sale instances, copies of the revenue record and the
photocopy of the village map.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
6. Considering the above referred evidence, the learned
Judge allowed the reference by awarding additional
compensation at the rate of Rs.570.00/- per sq. mts. What
weighed with the learned Judge was the report of Valuation
Committee dated 20.05.2004 wherein, the market value fixed
was Rs.570/-. Moreover, the learned Judge, applying the
principle laid down by this Court, deducted 40% from the
additional compensation. The amount derived was Rs.342/-;
further deducting Rs.2.70/- already awarded, the additional
compensation arrived at was Rs.339.30/- per sq. mts. The
appellant is aggrieved by the said determination whereas the
claimants are aggrieved by the deduction of 40%.
7. So far as 40% deduction is concerned, the issue is no
longer res integra. In the judgment in the case of Land
Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi Ravataji
Lumbaji (supra) in paragraphs 14 to 18, it has been observed
thus:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
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 for additional 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 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 in outskirt 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, is
small plot and situated within the center of the city, therefore,
we are of the opinion that the original claimants are entitled
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
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.510/- per
sq.mtr. And Sujalam Safalam Canal passes through 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.160/- per Sq.Mtr
i.e. total compensation at Rs.493.50. Rest of the observation
and direction would remain unaltered. Decree to be drawn
accordingly. Record & Proceedings are sent back forthwith."
8. The amount determined by the reference Court was
Rs.570/- which was on the basis of the interim valuation
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
report; however, considering the final valuation report dated
20.05.2004, the coordinate bench has determined the market
value. Clearly,as per the report of the Valuation Committee
the market value derived was Rs. 570/- which, was taken as a
base by the learned Judge. The coordinate bench while
accepting the said report so also the market value, allowed
20% deduction instead of 40% deduction. The said judgment
was followed by the coordinate bench in the case of Special
Land Acquisition Officer (Dy. Collector) & Anr. Vs. Patel
Kanjibhai Ganeshbhai(supra). While modifying the award the
division bench has observed thus:
3. In light of the decision rendered by the co-ordinate bench
of this Court in First Appeal No. 669 of 2019 of which
paragraphs no. 14 and 15 are reproduced as under, the
compensation awarded to the claimants has to be on the basis
of the valuation report dated 20.05.2004.
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
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 for additional
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 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 in outskirt 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, is small 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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
4. Thereafter, the above decision was followed in a
subsequent decision of this court in First Appeal No. 671 of
2019. In view of the above, the total compensation therefore in
light of the aforesaid appeals, the orders of which are relied
upon, has to be Rs.456/- per sq. mtrs for the respective
acquired lands with all statutory benefits and interest after
adjustment of the amounts already received by the claimants.
Such statutory benefit accrued shall be as per the rate
prescribed under Section 28 of the Act. 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. "
9. At this stage the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat
through Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr. vs. Amaji
Mohanji Thakore (supra) would be worth referring to.
Paragraph 27 and 28 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready
reference:
27.The Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India,
reported in (2009) 15 SCC, 769 on the contrary at paragraph
44 has observed as under:-
"44. One of the recognised methods for determination of
market value is with reference to the opinion of experts.
The estimation of market value is with reference to the
opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by
such statutorily constituted Expert committee, as expert
evidence can therefore form the basis for determining
the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant
piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party
to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may
flow from such guideline market value. We, however,
hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a
relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by
the statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in
accordance with the prescribed procedure."
28. In the present case, the valuation has been made by the
Valuation Committee for giving opinion to the District
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
Collector in exercise of the statutory power. The Valuation
Committee is comprising of the expert body in the field of
valuation, including the District Collector himself, T.P.
Authority, etc. Therefore, there is no reason why the valuation
made by the Valuation Committee of the Government for
fixation of the price for allotment of the land at the very village
by way of sale instance or price fixed by the Government for
allotment of a land to an organization should not be taken into
consideration."
10. It has been held and observed that the Valuation
Committee is comprising of the expert body in the field of
valuation, including the District Collector etc. and therefore,
there is no reason as to why the valuation made by the
Valuation Committee of the Government for fixing the price
for allotment of the land by way of sale instances, should not
be taken into consideration. Weighing the evidence produced
by the claimants on one hand and the evidence on the part of
the appellants on the other, the evidence of the claimants,
supports the market value determined by the learned Judge
and hence, we find no perversity or illegality committed by the
learned Judge in determining the market value. This Court,
therefore is of the considered opinion that the learned Judge
has determined just and reasonable compensation relying
upon the report of the Valuation Committee dated 20.05.2004.
So far as the deduction is concerned, considering the
judgment in connection with the very same acquisition, the
same should be 20% instead of 40%.
11. In view of the above discussion, the claimants therefore
would be entitled to claim compensation at the rate of
Rs.456/- per sq. mts.(Rs.570 - Rs.114(20% deduction))
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2848/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2025
undefined
together with all statutory benefits and interest as per the
provisions of section 28 of the Act of 1894. The State
Government, is directed to calculate the differential amount
and deposit the same within a period of ten weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of this order. Once the amount is
deposited, the trial Court shall disburse the remaining amount
after due and proper verification.
12. In view of the above, the captioned first appeals filed
by the State Government are dismissed accordingly and
cross objections filed by the claimants stand partly allowed.
Connected civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. No
order as to costs.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
SINDHU NAIR
