Gujarat High Court

Joshi Champaklal Shankarlal vs State Of Gujarat Through Executive ... on 4 November, 2025

Author: A.Y. Kogje

Bench: A.Y. Kogje

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                               C/FA/2979/2025                                   ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                 R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2979 of 2025

                       ================================================================
                                      JOSHI CHAMPAKLAL SHANKARLAL & ORS.
                                                    Versus
                              STATE OF GUJARAT THROUGH EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
                       ================================================================
                       Appearance:
                       DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
                       for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                       MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4
                       MR SHIVAN DIXIT, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                       ================================================================

                          CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
                                and
                                HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA

                                                            Date : 04/11/2025

                                               ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)

1. The present appeal arises from common judgment and

decree dated 31.12.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Himmatnagar in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.2 of 2012

to 31 of 2012, whereby Reference under Section 18 of the Land

Acquisition Act, 1894 came to be rejected and thus, the award

passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, determining the market

value, stood confirmed. Being aggrieved, the captioned appeal.

2. At the outset, learned AGP for the respondent-State

drew attention of the Court to judgment and order dated

11.02.2025 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.427 of 2022

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

and allied matters and submitted that this group of appeals also

arose of the same acquisition proceedings. It is submitted that

subsequently, First Appeal Nos.1083 of 2022 and 1084 of 2025

(Land Reference Case Nos. 30/2012 and 26/2012) were disposed of

by oral order dated 20.06.2025; and First Appeal No.2636 of 2025

and other allied matters was decided by common oral judgment

dated 25.07.2025. It is further submitted that total market value

determined is at the rate of Rs.285/- per sq. mtr.

3. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and

having perused documents on record, it appears that the present

First Appeal, though presented on 15.04.2019, came to be

registered only on 20.08.2025 as it had remained pending for

removal of office objections, and hence,was left out from the batch

of appeals which had been decided earlier. From the record, it

appears that by order dated 25.06.2019, time to remove office

objection was granted up to 09.07.2019. Thereafter, by order

dated 11.07.2019, time to remove office objections was further

granted up to 25.07.2019. Thereafter, again by order dated

30.07.2019, time to remove office objections was granted up to

13.08.2019. Thereafter, by order dated 19.08.2019, time to remove

office objections was granted up to 31.08.2019. Lastly, by order

dated 23.09.2019, as a last chance, time to remove office objections

was granted up to 21.10.2019, failing which the matter was to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

stand dismissed automatically. Even then also, office objections

were not removed and matter stood dismissed for default. It

appears that thereafter MCA (for restoration) came to be filed

along with Civil Application (for condonation of delay), which came

to be allowed by order dated 12.04.2022. Thereafter again, as

office objections were not removed, by order dated 25.01.2023, as

a last chance, time to remove office objections was granted up to

10.02.2023.

4. By order dated 28.08.2025, this Court admitted the

present appeal noting it as a left-out matter from the above group

and directed listing for final disposal.

5. Upon perusal of the record, the Court finds that the

present appeal stands on identical footing with the aforesaid group

and nothing appears on record so as to take a different view.

6. In paras-12 and 19 to 26 of judgment and order dated

11.02.2025 in First Appeal No.427 of 2022 and allied matters, this

Court has observed as under:-

"12. ...... The said evidence is the minutes of the meeting dated 17.05.2001 of the Valuation Committee, convened under the chairmanship of the Collector wherein, the lands in village Raigadh admeasuring 2000 sq. mtrs. was also one of the subjects and the market value determined was of Rs.490/-. It is not in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

dispute that the land was acquired for the purpose of telephone exchange and staff quarters. Further evidence, Exh.77, is the minutes of the meeting of the Valuation Committee dated 06.06.2009 of village Shravana. The land involved was a Government waste land, market value of which was considered and determined at Rs. 254 per sq. mtr. Undeniably, villages Shravana and Raigadh are at a distance of 3.5-4 kms. Similarly, evidence, Exh.78 is the certified copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 02.03.2010 of the Valuation Committee. Pertinently, the land involved was of village Gambhoi and was required for the purpose of constructing hospital for animals. The Valuation Committee determined the market value at Rs.866/- per sq. mtr. Similarly, Exh.79 is minutes of the meeting of the Valuation Committee dated 20.05.2010 with respect to village Viravada, acquired for the purpose of go-down of Viravada Milk Producers Union Ltd. and the price determined was of Rs. 760/- per sq. mtr.

19. At this stage, if one considers the evidence, Exh.65 which is the examination-in-chief of the Talati- cum-Mantri of the Raighad Gram Panchayat, he has stated that in the year 2007, plots of the Gamtal were allotted based on a market value at Rs.219/- per sq. mtr. Necessary Kabulat and Sanad were also issued - Exh.33. He further stated that the auction, was conducted as per the prevalent market value of the year 2007. Citing various instances, he indicated that the market value of the land ranged from Rs.219/- to Rs.251/-. A reading of the cross-examination of the said

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

witness suggests that nothing to the contrary has been proven. It has also been indicated that the evidence Exhs.33 to 36, in comparison to the lands that were acquired, are at a distance of 30 mtrs. It is also stated that the lands which have been acquired, are connected to National Highway no.8. Indicating the distance between the villages Raighad and Gambhoi, it is stated that the distance is almost 7 to 8 kilometers; whereas, the distance between village Raighad and Viravada is 12 kms. and distance between village Shravana and Raighad is 5 kms. The evidence Exhs.33 to 39, have not been dislodged.

20. Similarly, the evidence - Exh.75 is of the Chitnis from the office of the Collector. He has substantiated the market value determined in the year 2001 by the Valuation Committee, at Rs.490/- per sq. mtr. in the case of allotment of land to the Telephone Exchange and the staff quarters. Therefore, in the year 2001, the price determined was Rs.490/- per sq. mtr. The evidence further states that in the year 2010, for village Shravana, the market value determined was Rs.254/-. Additionally, the sale instances of other villages, namely, Gambhoi and Viravada have also been provided which are to an extent of Rs.866/- per sq. mtr. and Rs.760/- per sq. mtr. respectively. During the cross- examination, it was stated that the evidence - Exh.76, the minutes of the meeting of the Valuation Committee dated 17.05.2001, pertains to the non-agricultural land. Similarly, the evidence-Exhs.78 and 79 of village Gambhoi and Viravada are also of non-agricultural land.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

21. Exh.95 is the examination-in-chief of the Deputy Collector, who has deposed that she has perused the documents and the record. In her testimony, she has laid emphasis on the judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Case nos.322 to 329 of 1996 dated 31.01.2011. It is also stated that the land acquired is of the same village with similar potential and hence, in absence of any appeal filed against the said judgment, it should be considered. In her cross- examination, the witness, has stated that village Raighad, is the largest village in Himmatnagar and is connected to the National Highway. It was also stated that the acquired land is submerged; however, the witness could not dislodge the evidence, Exhs.33 to 39 and 42, 44 so also Exhs.76 to 79. The evidence provided by the witness touches on the aspect of acquisition and has accepted the price determined by the Valuation Committee Exh.41 of village Gambhoi for block no.392 admeasuring 8094 sq. mtrs. of non- agricultural land. The market value determined, was Rs.866/- per sq. mtr.

22. Furthermore, the Deputy Executive Engineer has deposed vide Exh.144. He accepted the aspect of acquisition of the land for the public purpose of Pratap Sagar Anushravan Lake. Also, the steps taken for the purpose of constructing the boundary wall around the lake. In cross-examination, it is admitted that he had no information to substantiate the market value. Thus, the witness, could not dislodge the determination of the market value.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

23. What weighed with the learned Judge, was the judgment of the Reference Court of the very same village of the year 1996. Applying the 10% appreciation, the learned Judge, arrived at the market value and based on that concluded that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, is a fair market value. However, significant time has passed since then and the sale instances vide Exhs.33 to 39, 41, 42, 76 to 79 were highly relevant, which could have been analyzed by the learned Judge; however, it was not done and instead, the judgment of the year 1996 was considered.

24. Perceptibly, villages Raighad, Shravana, Gambhoi and Viravada are aligned and connected to National Highway no.8. The evidence produced pertains to the villages Shravana, Gambhoi and Viravada; however, this Court finds that villages Gambhoi and Viravada are at a greater distance and hence, Exhs.41, 42, 78 and 79, are not considered. The nearby village is Shravana and the distance between Raighad and Shravana is hardly 3.4 kilometers. The market value of the very village and village Shravana was also available and therefore, it would have been appropriate to accept that market value. The market value determined by the Valuation Committee of village Shravana of the year 2009 was Rs.254/- per sq. mtr.

25. Concededly, the distance between village Shravana and Raighad is hardly 3 to 4 kilometers and the readily available market value determined by the Valuation Committee was well-documented and could

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

have been accepted. Upon considering other evidence of the same village, namely, Exhs.33 to 39, the market value determined, ranged from Rs.219/- to Rs,251/- per sq. mtr. The only distinction is that the lands in question, are non-agricultural. Therefore, the market value of the land, was readily available of the same village of the years close to the date of section 4 notification. Applying the requisite appreciation and deduction of 30 %, the market value could have been appropriately determined. In the opinion of this Court, Exh.40, which is the minutes of the meeting of the Valuation Committee of village Shravana of the year 2009, is in close proximity to the date of section 4 notification. When there is an opinion of the Expert Committee constituted by the State Government comprising the Deputy Collector, Collector and Town Planning Officer; there is no reason to doubt the same. Moreover, the section 4 notification in the present case, is dated 21.09.2010 and hence, the appreciation would be available for almost 15 months which would come to Rs.31/-, over and above the market value determined by the Valuation Committee at Rs.254/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, the clear market value would be Rs.285/- per sq. mtr. (Rs.254 (+) Rs.31).

26. Consequently, the judgment and award dated 31.12.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar, district Sabarkantha, rejecting the reference, deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby, quashed and set aside. All the claimants are entitled to additional compensation as discussed hereinabove at the rate of Rs.285/- per sq. mtr. for the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

irrigated land together with statutory benefits as provided in sections 23(1-A), 23 together with interest under provisions of section 28 of the Act of 1894."

7. Accordingly, following the reasoning recorded in the

common judgments dated 11.02.2025 and 25.07.2025, the present

appeal is required to be allowed in the same terms.

8. However, as observed hereinabove, though the present

First Appeal was presented on 15.04.2019, it came to be registered

only on 20.08.2025 due to non-removal of office objections. Though

time to remove office objections was granted several times, then

also office objections were not removed and matter came to be

dismissed for default and applications for restoration and

condonation of delay were required to be filed. This conduct of the

appellants does not entitle them to claim interest on the amount of

compensation awarded.

9. In this regard, reference may be made to the decision

of the Apex Court in case of Mohar Singh (Dead) through Lrs.

Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Collector, reported in 2023 (14)

SCR 842 wherein it was observed as under:-

"12. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the material placed on record, we are satisfied that the appellants are entitled to seek parity with their co-villagers in the grant of compensation for their

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

acquired land. This Court has consistently held in a catena of decisions that the inordinate delay in filing appeal in compensatory matters, per se, may not be fatal as the rights and equities between the parties can be well balanced by denying the statutory benefits, such as interest for the delayed period. We are thus of the considered opinion that the delay in filing the first appeal(s) could be condoned subject to the condition that the appellants would not be entitled to enure undue benefit for the delayed period. We grant such indulgence in the appellant's favour also for the reason that a batch of first appeals at the instance of other land owners was still pending consideration before the High Court. All that the High Court ought to have emphatically denied to the late-comers was the benefit of interest including on the solatium, under Section 34 of the Act for the period from the date of passing of the award by the Reference Court till the filing of the first appeals."

10. In case of Ningappa Thotappa Angadi (Dead)

Through Lrs. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, reported in

2020 (19) SCC 599, the Apex Court observed as under:-

"8. We find that the issue raised in this appeal is no longer res-integra. This Court in Dhiraj Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, 2014 14 SCC 127 held that:

"14. The appellants are identically situated and there is no reason to meet out a different treatment to them. We also note that, while in these cases, the High Court had refused to condone the delay and dismissed the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

LPAs of the appellants, other LPAs were allowed by the High Court itself by condoning the delay of the same magnitude in the same circumstances.

15. Equities can be balanced by denying the appellants' interest for the period for which they did not approach the Court. The substantive rights of the appellants should not be allowed to be defeated on technical grounds by taking hypertechnical view of self- imposed limitations. In the matter of compensation for land acquisition, we are of the view that approach of the Court has to be pragmatic and not pedantic. [Emphasis applied]

9. The afore-cited view has been consistently followed by this Court in a series of cases before and after the decision in Dhiraj Singh's (dead) case (supra). In Imrat Lal & Ors. v. Land Acquisition Collector & Ors., 2014 14 SCC 133 it was observed that the delay in filing the Special Leave Petition cannot be the reason to deny just and fair compensation to the claimants. This Court observed that a liberal approach should be adopted in such like matters. In Huchanagouda v. Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, 2019 SCC Online SC 990 also this Court condoned the delay and restored parity in the matter of grant of compensation though with a condition "that for the period of delay in filing and in refiling the Special Leave Petitions, the appellant-claimant(s) shall not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced compensation and statutory amount."

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/2979/2025 ORDER DATED: 04/11/2025

undefined

11. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award dated

31.12.2018 in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.2 of 2012 to 31 of

2012 stands quashed and set aside. The appellants-claimants shall

be entitled to total compensation at Rs.285/- per sq. mtr. for

irrigated land, together with statutory benefits under Sections

23(1-A), 23 and interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition

Act, 1894. However, the amount of compensation awarded to the

present appellants shall not carry any interest.

12. R & P be sent back to the concerned Reference Court.