Gujarat High Court
Kantibhai @ Kamalnayan Muljibhai vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 9 May, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1225 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
KANTIBHAI @ KAMALNAYAN MULJIBHAI & ORS.
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESENTATIVES for
the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Appellant(s) No. 2
MS KRISHNA DESAI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Defendant(s)
No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 09/05/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present First Appeal is filed under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act") at the instance
of the appellants - original claimants being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 31.01.2007
passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
Land Reference Case No. 1211 of 1997 preferred under Section
18 of the Act, whereby, the learned Judge has awarded
additional compensation of Rs.707.50p. per Are. By the
aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the learned Judge
has also awarded all statutory benefits arising out of the Land
Acquisition Act.
2. Brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, the
lands of the claimants bearing block no. 65, situated at village
Bharthana admeasuring Are Sq.mt. 0-23-25 were acquired by
the Land Acquisition Case No.46 of 1994 for the purpose of
construction of Narmada Yojna B-3 minor branch. It is further
the case of the claimants that notification under Section 4 of
the Act was published on 01.12.1994 and notification under
Section 6 of the Act was published on 09.12.1995 and
ultimately, the award was passed under Section 11 of the Act
on 26.08.1996. It is further the case of the claimants that the
Land Acquisition Officer passed an award of Rs.6.67 Sq.mt.
equivalent to Rs.667.50p. per Are by way of compensation for
their acquired lands. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
said award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, the
claimants had filed the aforesaid Land Reference Case
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
claiming Rs.12,132.50p. per Are, however, the Reference Court
awarded only additional amount of Rs.707.50p. per Are. Being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award of the Reference
Court, the claimants have filed the present appeal.
3. Heard Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing on
behalf of the appellants - original claimants and Ms. Krishna
Desai, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on
behalf of the respondent - State Authorities.
4. Mr. Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellants, has
submitted that from the same group of acquisition for the
village Bharthana, identical First Appeals have been decided
by the Division Bench of this Court being First Appeal No.3394
of 2012 and allied matters on 15.10.2012, which attained
finality and was not further challenged before higher forum.
Relying upon the same, learned advocate Mr. Prajapati has
submitted that in view of the decision of the Division Bench in
the aforesaid group of First Appeals, the present appeal is also
required to be allowed as the Division Bench of this Court has
dismissed the aforesaid group of appeals preferred by the
respondent State Authorities.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
5. As against that, Ms. Krishna Desai, learned AGP has
submitted that the Reference court has rightly considered the
facts of the present case and the situation of the lands, sale
instances for the last five years at Exh.-10. She has submitted
that the Land Acquisition Officer has rightly awarded the
amount of Rs.667.50p. Per Are and therefore, the
enhancement claimed by the appellants is very excessive and
on higher side. She has further submitted that the Reference
Court has rightly modified and awarded Rs.707.50p. Per Are
from Rs.667.50p., which is in consonance with the earlier
acquisition made from the same village and therefore, no
interference is required to be called for in the present appeal
and the present appeal is required to be dismissed, however,
the learned AGP is unable to controvert the fact that in the
similar group of appeals, the Division Bench of this Court has
dismissed the appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer and
has enhanced the amount of compensation and therefore, she
has submitted that appropriate orders may be passed in view
of the decision of the Division Bench.
6. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
respective parties and perused the material place on record. I
have also perused the impugned award passed by the
Reference Court. On perusal of the same, it appears that the
Reference Court has decided the reference mainly relying upon
the last five years' sale instances at Exh.-10. So far as the
situation of the lands acquired of the present appellants at
block no.65 of village Bharthana is concerned, it is required to
be considered that whether they were irrigated lands or not,
whether they were situated nearby the center point of the road
or not, whether they were situated nearby village boundary or
not and therefore, under such circumstance, the Reference
Court has not properly appreciated the same while passing the
impugned award.
6.1 Considering the decision of the Division Bench of
this Court in group of First Appeals relied upon by the learned
advocate Mr. Prajapati, wherein, the Reference Court had
considered sale instances and acquisition of lands of village
Zanor which was adjacent to village Bharthana, where the
lands were acquired for the purpose of Power Electricity
Company and for development in the village Zanor itself on
account of the power project. As against same, so far as village
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
Bharthana is concerned, it has not come on record that there
was any specific development like establishment of any
industry or otherwise. Under the circumstances, 40%
deduction towards the development factor between the lands
at village Zanor and village Bharthana made by the Reference
Court could also not be said that there was erroneous
approach on the part of the Reference Court. However, in my
opinion, on perusal of the fact that while considering the
appreciation at the rate of 10% per annum, the Reference
Court has committed an error in as much as it has given
cumulative effect at the rate of 10% per annum as against the
simple increase of 10% per annum. If the amount of Rs.75.00
is taken as the basis, time gap between the acquisition of the
lands at village Zanor was in the year 1991 whereas in the
present case it was in 1994, therefore, roughly it can be said to
be difference of three years. If 10% appreciation is considered
at simple rate per year at the rate of Rs.7.50, Rs.30.00 would
be required to be added considering time gap of three years
and the resultant amount would come to Rs.105.00 per square
meter being the market value of the lands under acquisition.
Out of the aforesaid amount, Rs.6.67 per square meter is
already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
Therefore, the claimants would be entitled to additional
compensation of Rs.97.95p. per square meter and if the said
figure is rounded off, it would be Rs.98.00 per square meter as
per the decision of the Division Bench. Under the
circumstances, the award of the Reference Court needs to be
modified to the aforesaid extent only. Even the first award
passed by the Land Acquisition Officer qua village Zanor was
neither challenged nor carried further before the higher forum
and relying upon the said decision, the Division Bench has
considered the group of First Appeals and thus, in the present
case also, the appellants are entitled to enhanced amount of
compensation. Other benefits granted by the Reference Court,
such as increase in the value at 12% per annum and solatium
at the rate of 30% and interest at the rate of 9% for the first
year and 15% for the subsequent year are, by way of statutory
consequence and, therefore, no interference is called for.
7. In view of the aforesaid observation and discussion, it is
held that the claimants would be entitled to the additional
compensation of Rs.98.00 per square meter. Further, the
claimants shall also be entitled to increase at the rate of 12%
per annum under section 23(1-A) and solatium at the rate of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1225/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/05/2025
undefined
30% as per section 23(2) and interest at the rate of 9% for the
first year and 15% for the subsequent years as per section 28
of the Act until the amount is paid or deposited in the Court.
Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be
no order as to costs.
7.1 The aforesaid amount alongwith interest and
solatium shall be deposited within a period of 8 weeks from the
date of receipt of order of this Court. On deposit of the amount,
the same shall be disbursed in favour of the appellants -
original claimants after due verification of their bank details
through RTGS/NEFT.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
