Gujarat High Court
Legal Heirs Of Sandhi Aadambhai ... vs State Of Gujarat on 3 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4131 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3208 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3210 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3211 of 2023
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4077 of 2023
==========================================================
LEGAL HEIRS OF SANDHI AADAMBHAI MAMADBHAI & ANR.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1
MR BHAVESH DESAI, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 03/11/2025
COMMON ORAL ORDER
1. The present First Appeals have been filed by the
respective claimants challenging the Judgment and Award
dated 26.09.2017 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Khambhaliya in group of LAR Nos.22 of 1995 to 37 of
1995.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas Satta for the
appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Bhavesh Desai for respondent - State in the respective
appeal. Though served, none appeared for respondent No.2.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
3. Upon request of learned advocates for the parties, all
appeals are heard and decided together by a common order
as the issues and submissions are common.
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
4.1 The land of claimant/s situated in village - Bhenakvad,
Taluka: Bhanvad, District: Jamnagar (at present District
DevBhoomi Dwarka) was acquired by the Land Acquisition
Officer for the purpose of Vartu-2 Irrigation Scheme.
Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on
26.07.1990 and under Section 6 was published on 15.05.1991.
The Land Acquisition Officer, under Section 11(1) of the Act
declared the award and awarded Rs.2/- per sq. mtr. for
Bagayat land, Rs.1.5/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land and
Rs.0.01 per sq. mtr. For Kharaba land. The award of the
Land Acquisition Officer came to be challenged by the land
owners under Section 18 of the Act, by way of reference
proceedings. The learned Reference Court allowed the
reference cases by granting compensation at Rs.20/- per sq.
mtr. for Bagayat land, Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land
and Rs.1/- per sq. mtr. for Kharaba land.
4.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award, original
claimants have filed respective First Appeals.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
5. Learned advocate for the appellants contended that the
compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer was
too meager. The claimants had sought compensation at
Rs.10/- per sq. meter for the acquired land. After considering
the evidence led by applicants regarding their income from
the acquired land, the learned Reference Court observed that
the claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs.15/- per sq.
mtr. for Jirayat land, Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. for the Bagayat
land and Rs.1/- per sq. mtr. for Kharaba land.
5.1 Learned advocate for the appellants has placed reliance
upon the decisions in the case of Ashok Kumar and Anr. Vs.
State of Hariyana reported in (2016) 4 SCC 544 and
Narendra and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426.
5.2 By relying upon the aforesaid two decisions, learned
advocate for the appellants contended that, while awarding
compensation, the Reference Court is required to consider the
maximum reasonable compensation. It is further contended
that the claimants, who have lost their land in the process
of acquisition, are entitled to fair, just and reasonable
compensation. Learned advocate for Appellant has relied on
common order dated 06.10.2025 passed in First Appeal
No.249 of 2023 and allied matters and contended that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
aforesaid Appeals were arising out of LAQ No. 37 of 1989
and present Appeals are also arising out of LAQ No. 37 of
1989. In First Appeal No.249 of 2023 and allied matters, this
Court has awarded compensation of acquired land at Rs.25.23
per sq. mtrs. It is, therefore, submitted that the claimants
may be granted compensation at the rate of Rs.25.23 per sq.
mtr. for the acquired land as per the decision of this Hon'ble
Court in First Appeal No.249 of 2023 and allied matters
passed in Group LAR No. 129 of 1993 to 139 of 1993.
6. Per contra, learned AGP contended that the learned
Reference Court has awarded just and reasonable
compensation. It is further contended that the claimants, who
claimed compensation at Rs.10/- per sq. meter for the
acquired land and the learned Reference Court awarded
compensation at Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. for acquired land is
uncalled for, and the same request may be rejected. Learned
AGP could not contradict a fact that in First Appeal No. 249
of 2023, this Court has awarded compensation at Rs. 25.23/-
per sq. mtrs.
7. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the parties and averments made in the appeals
as well as perused the materials placed on record, and more
particularly, the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
case of Ashok Kumar and Anr. (Supra) and Narendra and
Others (Supra), the issue involved in the present appeals, is
in a very narrow compass.
8. In the case of Ashok Kumar (Supra) in paragraph No.7,
the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
"The pre-amended provision puts a cap on the
maximum: the compensation by court should not be
beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in
1984, on the contrary, puts a cap on the minimum:
compensation cannot be less than what was
awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap
on maximum having been expressly omitted, and
the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear
that the amount of compensation that a court can
award is no longer restricted to the amount
claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the
court to award just and fair compensation taking
into consideration the true market value and other
relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by
the owner."
9. While determining the question of compensation the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a gap on maximum
compensation was put in pre-amendment provision but as per
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
the amendment in the year 1984, a gap on minimum
compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the
Land Acquisition Collector. The gap on maximum
compensation having been expressly omitted, and the gap is
put only minimum compensation, a duty is caste upon the
Court to award just and fair compensation taking into
consideration a true market value and other relevant factors,
irrespective of the claim of land owners.
10. In the case of Narendra (Supra), in paragraph Nos.5
and 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the issue on
the award of just and fair compensation and has
observed as under:-
"5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of
the opinion that the issue has already been settled by
this Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana wherein
it is held that it is the duty of the court to award just
and fair compensation taking into consideration true
market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of
claim made by the landowner and there is no cap on the
maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by
the court and the courts are not restricted to awarding
only that amount that has been claimed by the
landowners/applicants in their application before it. The
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
relevant paragraphs of this judgment are quoted as
under: (SCC pp. 546-48, paras 6-7 & 10-11)
"6. Prior to Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the
amount of compensation that could be awarded
by the Court was limited to the amount claimed
by the applicant. Section 25 read as under:
25. Rules as to amount of compensation.-
(1) When the applicant has made a claim to
compensation, pursuant to any notice given
under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by
the court shall not exceed the amount so
claimed or be less than the amount awarded by
the Collector under Section 11.
(2) When the applicant has refused to make
such claim or has omitted without sufficient
reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make
such claim, the amount awarded by the court
shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by
the Collector.
(3) When the applicant has omitted for a
sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to
make such claim, the amount awarded to him
by the court shall not be less than, and may
exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
The amended Section 25 reads as under:
25. Amount of compensation awarded by court
not to be lower than the amount awarded by
the Collector. The amount of compensation
awarded by the Court shall not be less than the
amount awarded by the Collector under Section
11.'
The amendment has come into effect on 24-9-
1984.
7. The pre-amended provision puts a cap on the
maximum; the compensation by court should not
be beyond the amount claimed. The amendment
in 1984, on the contrary, puts a cap on the
minimum: compensation cannot be less than
what was awarded by the Land Acquisition
Collector. The cap on maximum having been
expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is
only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of
compensation that a court can award is no
longer restricted to the amount claimed by the
applicant. It is the duty of the court to award
just and fair compensation taking into
consideration the true market value and other
relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made
by the owner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
9. In Bhag Singh v. UT of Chandigarh, this
Court held that there may be situations where
the amount higher than the amount claimed
may be awarded to the claimant. The Court
observed: (SCC p. 741, para 3)
'3.... It must be remembered that this was not a
dispute between two private citizens where it
would be quite just and legitimate to confine the
claimant to the claim made by him and not to
award him any higher amount than that claimed
though even in such a case there may be
situations where an amount higher than that
claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for
instance where an amount is claimed as due at
the foot of an account. Here was a claim made
by the appellants against the State Government
for compensation for acquisition of their land
and under the law, the State was bound to pay
to the appellants compensation on the basis of
the market value of the land acquired and if
according to the judgments of the learned Single
Judge and the Division Bench, the market value
of the land acquired was higher than that
awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
Additional District Judge, there is no reason why
the appellants should have been denied the
benefit of payment of the market value so
determined. To deny this benefit to the
appellants would tantamount to permitting the
State Government to acquire the land of the
appellants on payment of less than the true
market value. There may be cases where, as for
instance, under agrarian reform legislation, the
holder of land may, legitimately, as a matter of
social justice with a view to eliminating
concentration of land in the hands of a few and
bringing about its equitable distribution, be
deprived of land which is not being personally
cultivated by him or which is in excess of the
ceiling area with payment of little compensation
or no compensation at all, but where land is
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
it would not be fair and just to deprive the
holder of his land without payment of the true
market value when the law, in so many terms,
declares that he shall be paid such market
value.'
10. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
Kanhaiya Lal, this Court held that under the
amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the
Court can grant a higher compensation than
that claimed by the applicant in his pleadings....
11. Further, in Bhimasha v. LAO, a three-Judge
Bench reiterated the principle in Bhag Singh
and rejected the contention that a higher
compensation than that claimed by the owner in
his pleadings cannot be awarded by the Court."
(emphasis supplied)
8. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid
provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind
that those landowners who are agriculturist in most
of the cases, and whose land is acquired for public
purpose should get fair compensation. Once a
particular rate of compensation is judicially
determined. which becomes a fair compensation,
benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could
not approach the court. It is with this aim the
aforesaid provision is incorporated by the legislature.
Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind. the
mere fact that the compensation which was claimed
by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
compensation which is ultimately determined to be
fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny
such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the
ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser
rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be
made applicable and rendering substantial justice to
the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It
is to be kept in mind that in the matter of
compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government,
the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing
parties. It was not their voluntary act to sell off their
land. They were compelled to give the land to the
State for public purpose. For this purpose, the
consideration which is to be paid to them is also not
of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of
the Act, the rate at which compensation should be
paid to the persons divested of their land is
determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The
Scheme further provides that his determination is
subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to
the District Judge and appeal to the High Court, etc.
In order to ensure that the landowners are given
proper compensation, the Act provides for "fair
compensation". Once such a fair compensation is
determined judicially, all landowners whose land was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
taken away by the same notification should become
the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of
good governance, failing to do so would also amount
to discrimination by giving different treatment to the
persons though identically situated. On technical
grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in
the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be
denied to them."
11. In paragraph no.5, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also
taken into consideration the decision of Ashok Kumar (Supra).
It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
paragraph No.8 in the case of Narendra (Supra) that strict
rule of pleadings are not to be made applicable and
rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the
paramount consideration.
12. The purpose behind the enactment of the Land
Acquisition Act is to ensure that the landowners who have
lost their land and livelihood due to acquisitions are awarded
just and reasonable compensation. Such compensation must be
determined based on the market value of the land. For
determining the market value of land, out of various relevant
factors, one of the factor is the yield basis i.e. how much
income earned by applicant/s from the land, which is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
acquired by the acquiring body.
In the present case, learned Reference Court after
considering the evidence on record, observed and concluded by
awarding compensation at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. meter
for Bagayat land, Rs.15/- per sq. meter for Jirayat land and
Rs.1/- per sq. meter for Kharaba land.
13. Considering the fact that the claimants in the Land
Reference Application under Section 18 claimed Rs.10 per sq.
mtrs. (i.e. Rs.1,000/- per are) as compensation for acquired
land. Learned Reference Court has taken into consideration
the award passed in LAR No. 129 of 1993 to 139 of 1993
which also pertains to the same village - Bhenakvad.
Considering the claim of the claimants, the learned Reference
Court has considered higher valuation of the land in question
and awarded Rs.20/- per sq. mtr., Rs. 15/- per sq. mtr. and
Rs.1/- per sq. mtr. for the Bagayat land, Jirayat land and
Kharaba land respectively. However, considering the common
oral order dated 06.10.2025 passed in First Appeal No. 249
of 2023 and allied matters by this Court, the claimants are
found entitled to Rs.25.23 per sq. mtr. as compensation for
the acquired land along with statutory benefits on the
differential amount. The reason for the enhancement of
compensation is that in First Appeal No.249 of 2023 and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
allied matters is that the claimants were of the same village
and the purpose of acquisition is also the same. The
aforesaid First Appeals were arising out of LAQ No. 37 of
1989 and the present First Appeals are also arising out of
the same LAQ No. 37 of 1989. To maintain a parity, with
regard to assessment of market value of the land in question,
the First Appeals are allowed accordingly.
14. Considering the law laid down in the aforesaid
decisions, more particularly, since the learned Reference Court
has undisputedly considered best possible market value of
land and awarded compensation. In my view, appellants are
entitled to maximum compensation as the purpose of the
enactment of Act would be satisfied, if the claimants are
granted compensation of Rs.25.23/- per sq. meter for the
acquired land alongwith statutory benefits on the differential
amount as decided by this Court on 06.10.2025 in First
Appeal No.249 of 2023 and allied matters.
15. Resultantly, the First Appeals are allowed. Accordingly,
the respondents shall deposit enhanced compensation
Rs.25.23 ps. per sq. mtr. for acquired land before the
Reference Court within a period of Six Weeks from the date
of receipt of this order. Upon deposit of the additional
compensation, learned Reference Court shall disburse the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4131/2023 ORDER DATED: 03/11/2025
undefined
amount to the claimants after following due procedure.
16. Record and Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the
concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
MAYA
