Gujarat High Court
Legal Heirs Of Decd. Govind Jadav vs State Of Gujarat on 14 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH Court OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 740 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 740 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 741 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 742 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 743 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 744 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 745 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 746 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 747 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 748 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
LEGAL HEIRS OF DECD. GOVIND JADAV & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NIKUNT K RAVAL(5558) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,2,2.1,2.2,2.3
MR.RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Page 1 of 16
Uploaded by MRS. ARCHANA SAJEEVKUMAR PILLAI(HC01899) on Tue Nov 18 2025 Downloaded on : Wed Nov 19 00:47:16 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
Date : 14/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. These appeals are filed by the appellant-original
claimants challenging the award passed by the learned
5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Land
Acquisition Case No.383 of 1988 dated 06.10.2012
whereby the learned Court has rejected the claim of the
claimant for additional compensation on the ground that
reference is barred by limitation.
1.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that two
groups of appeals are before this Court challenging the
different award passed under section 18 of Land
Acquisition Act, rejecting the references on the same
ground of delay. The details of both the groups are
mentioned hereinbelow:
F.A. No.740 of F.A. No.742 of
2020 2020
Village Virpar, Jamnagar Virpar, Jamnagar
Section 4 11/05/1978 --
Section 6 16/11/1978 --
Section 11 Dated 19.02.1979 Dated 08.01.1979
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
award Declared on Declared on
26.03.1979 12.03.1979
Awarded Rs.70/- per Are (For Rs.70/- per Are (For
amount Jirayat Dry Land) Jirayat Dry Land)
under and Rs.100/- per and Rs.100/- per
section 11 Are (For Jirayat Are (For Jirayat
Irrigation Land) Irrigation Land)
and Rs.1 per Are
(For Kharaba Land)
Section 18 25.11.1987 25.11.1987
filed on
Judgment of 06.10.2012 06.10.2012
section 18 Dismissed Dismissed
Purpose of Construction of Branch Canal for Und
acquisition Irrigation Project
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval for the
appellant and learned AGP Mr.Rahul Dave for the State.
2.1. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that
learned reference Court has committed error in
dismissing the references filed under section 18 by the
claimant only on the ground of delay without examining
the same on merits. It is submitted by learned advocate
Mr.Nikunt Raval that the contention taken by the
appellant with regard to non serving of notice under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
section 12(2) was rebutted by the opponent neither
during cross-examination nor through independent
evidence. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits
that though learned Court has believed the case of the
present appellant with regard to non service of the
notice under section 12(2) of the Land Acquisition Act
however, has dismissed the reference on the ground that
appellant, on receiving the compensation has not filed
the references within a period of six months from the
date of receiving of the compensation. Learned advocate
Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that even if the appellant has
received the compensation however, the statutory
requirement of section 12(2) when it is not complied
with, learned Court could have decided the references
on merits instead of dismissing the same on the ground
of delay. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that
in identically situated references, the awards passed by
the Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 was
enhanced by this Court in different group of appeals and
of the same year notification, amount of Rs.750/- per Are
was awarded for the land pertaining to Jirayat Rs.937.50
per Are for the land pertaining to irrigation. Learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that said award was
also passed for the similar scheme namely construction
of branch canal for Und Irrigation Project. Learned
advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval submits that learned
reference Court by not entertaining the reference has
confirmed the award passed under section 11 of the Act
whereby meager amount of Rs.70/- per Are was awarded
with jiyarat dry land Rs.100/- per Are was awarded for
the land of jirayat irrigation land and Rs.1/-per Are was
awarded for kharaba land. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt
Raval submits that these are the claimants whose lands
were acquired under the compulsory acquisition and
without awarding the value either at the jantri rate or
market rate, learned Court has committed error and
therefore, impugned award deserves to be set aside.
2.2. Learned advocate Mr.Nikunt Raval has relied on the
decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Raja
Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs Dy. Land Acquisition
Officer reported in AIR 1961 SC 1500 and has
submitted that the legislature has necessarily imposed
the obligation under section 12(2) of the Act on the
Collector and if the same is not complied with then the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
references which are filed are required to be decided on
merits rather than on delay. Learned advocate
Mr.Nikunt Raval has relied on the decision of the this
Court by the Division Bench in the case of Heirs of
deceased Aher Naran Maiya Bhupat Naranbhai Vs
State of Gujarat in First Appeal No. 2864 of 2019
and submitted that even if the claimants have received
the compensation but with protest then the claimant
cannot be held dis-entitled for the enhanced amount of
compensation. Submitting the same, learned advocate
Mr.Nikunt Raval prayed to allow the First Appeals and
set aside the impugned judgments.
2.3. Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Rahul Dave submits that
even if the notice under section 12(2) has not been
received however, while accepting the amount of
compensation and not challenging the same within
prescribed time limit of six months, one can say that the
claimants have waived their rights for enhancing the
compensation. Learned AGP Mr.Rahul Dave submits that
it is the duty of the claimants to prove their case and to
make specific averments in the reference with regard to
dates of knowledge and in failing to perform that duty no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
relief can be granted in favour of the appellant and
therefore, no error has been committed by the learned
reference Court in dismissing reference on the ground of
delay.
3. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and
referring the judgment as well as the record and
proceedings, it emerges that at the stage of filing the
application under section 18, the contention was taken
by the claimants that the claimants were not present at
the time of the award under section 11 neither they have
been informed with regard to the award. It is also
contended that notice under section 12(2) has not been
served till date. It is stated in the reference application
that on making inquiry they came into knowledge that
award has been passed by the Acquisition Officer and
the amount has been accepted with protest. It is
contended that the amount awarded is very meager
amount and below the rate of jantri as well as the
market value and therefore, has claimed to enhance the
compensation. It emerges from the records that during
the chief examination of one Jivabhai Mavabhai Ghadiya
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
who was examined below Exh.12, a similar contention
was raised which was remained unrebutted during the
cross-examination by the learned advocate for the other
side. Additionally, before the learned court, the
documentary evidence pertaining to identical award in
LAQ No.106/1978 was placed on record. The sale deed
pertaining to the land of Patel Govindbhai Vastabhai was
also relied as well as copy of the jantri of village Virpur
was placed on record. On referring those documents, it
emerges that the market value of the acquired land was
much higher than the award passed by the learned
Acquisition Officer under section 11. On referring the
evidence of the witness namely Somajibhai Adaliyabhai
Dungariya was examined below Exh.27, no contention
was raised with regard to the statutory requirement of
section 12(2). It is undisputed that no written statement
was filed neither any contention with regard to being
barred by limitation was taken by the opponent.
However, the learned reference Court suo motu, taking
cognizance of the fact, that reference is filed within a
period of six months. Undoubtedly, this being a question
of law can be taken into consideration by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
reference Court however, in absence of fulfilling
statutory requirement of section 12 (2), in the opinion of
this Court, learned Court has committed error in
dismissing the reference on the ground of delay.
4. This Court has referred the decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of Raja Harish Chandra Raj
Singh Vs Dy. Land Acquisition Officer reported in
AIR 1961 SC 1500 wherein it is held that:
5.In the dealing with this question it is relevant to bear in mind
the legal character of the award made by the Collector under S.
12. In a sense it is a decision of the Collector reached by him
after holding an enquiry as prescribed by the Act. It is a decision,
inter alia, in respect of the amount of compensation which should
be paid to the person interested in the property acquired; but
legally the award cannot be treated as a decision; it is in law an
offer or tender of the compensation determined by the Collector to
the owner of the property under acquisition. If the owner accepts
the offer no further proceeding is required to be taken; the
amount is paid and compensation proceedings are concluded. If,
however, the owner does not accept the offer, S. 18 gives him the
statutory right of having the question determined by Court, and it
is the amount of compensation which the Court may determine
that would bind both the owner and the Collector. In that case it
is on the amount thus determined judicially that the acquisition
proceedings would be concluded. It is because of this nature of the
award that the award can be appropriately described as a tender
of offer made by the Collector on behalf of the Government to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
owner of the property for his acceptance. In Ezra v. Secretary of
State, ILR 30 Cal 36 at p. 86, it has been held that "the meaning
to be attached to the word "award" under S. 11 and its nature
and effect must be arrived at not from the mere use of the same
expression in both instances but from the examination of the
provisions of the law relating to the Collector's proceedings
culminating in the award. The consideration to which we have
referred satisfy us that the Collector acts in the matter of the
enquiry and the valuation of the land only as an agent of the
Government and not as judicial office; and that consequently,
although the Government is bound by his proceedings, he persons
interested are not concluded by his finding regarding the value of
the land or the compensation to be awarded"
Then the High Court has added that such tender once made is
binding on the Government and the Government cannot require
that the value fixed by its own officer acting on its behalf should
be open to question at its own instance before the Civil Court. The
said case was taken before the Privy Council in Ezra v. Secretary
of State, ILR 32 Cal 605 (PC), and their Lordship have expressly
approved of the observations made by the High Court to which we
have just referred. Therefore, if the award made by the Collector
is in law no more than an offer made on behalf of the
Government to the owner of the property then the making of the
award as properly understood must involve the communication of
the offer to the party concerned. That is the normal requirement
under the contract law and its applicability to cases of award
made under the Act cannot be reasonably excluded. Thus
considered the date of the award cannot be determined solely by
reference to the time when the award is signed by the Collector or
delivered by him in his office: it must involve the consideration of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
the question as to when it was known to the party concerned
either actually or constructively. If that be the true position then
the literal and mechanical construction of the words "the date of
the award occurring in the relevant section would not be
appropriate.
6.There is yet another point which leads to the same conclusion. If
the award is treated as an administrative decision taken by the
Collector in the matter of the valuation of the property sought to
be acquired it is clear that the said decision ultimately affects the
rights of the owner of the property and in that sense, like all deci
sions which affect persons, it is essentially fair and just that the
said decision should be communicated to the said party. The
knowledge of the party affected by such a decision, either actual
or constructive, is an essen-tial element which must be satisfied
before the decision can be brought into force. Thus considered the
mak ing of the award cannot consist merely in the physical act of
writing the award or signing it or even filing it in the office of
the Collector; it must involve the communication of the said award
to the party concerned either actually or constructively. If the
award is pronounced in the presence of the party whose rights are
affected by it it can be said to be made when pronounced. If the
date for the pronouncement of the award is commu-nicated to the
party and it is accordingly pronounced on the date previously
announced the award is said to be communicated to the said party
even if the said party is not actually present on the date of its
pronounce ment. Similarly if without notice of the date of its
pronouncement, an award is pronounced and a party is not
present the award can be said to be made when it is
communicated to the party later. The knowledge of the party
affected by the award, either actual or constructive, being an
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
essential requirement of fairplay and natural justice the expression
"the date of the award" used in the proviso must mean the date
when the award is either communicated to the party or is known
by him either actually or constructively. In our opin-ion, therefore,
it would be unreasonable to construe the words "from the date of
the Collector's award" used in the proviso to Section 18 in a literal
or mechanical way.
7.In this connection it is material to recall the fact that under
Section 12(2) it is obligatory on the Collector to give immediate
notice of the award to the persons interested as are not present
personally or by their rep-resentatives when the award is made.
This requirement itself postulates the necessity of the
communication of the award to the party concerned. The
legislature recognised that the making of the award under Section
11 followed by its filing under Section 12(1) would not meet the
requirements of justice before bringing the award into force. It
thought that the communication of the award to the party
concerned was also necessary, and so by the use of the mandatory
words an obligation is placed on the Collector to communicate the
award immediately to the person concerned. It is significant that
the section requires the Collector to give notice of the award
immediately after making it. This provision lends support to the
view which we have taken about the construction of the
expression "from the date of the Collector's award" in the proviso
to Section 18. It is because communication of the order is
regarded by the legislature as necessary that Section 12(2) has im-
posed an obligation on the Collector and if the relevant clause in
the proviso is read in the light of this statu-tory requirement it
tends to show that the literal and mechanical construction of the
said clause would be wholly inappropriate. It would indeed be a
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
very curious result that the failure of the Collector to discharge his
obligation under Section 12 (2) should directly tend to make
ineffective the right of the party to make an application under
Section 18, and this result could not possibly have been intended
by the legislature.
4.1. An identical view was taken by the Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Heirs of deceased Aher
Naran Maiya Bhupat Naranbhai Vs State of Gujarat
in First Appeal No. 2864 of 2019, wherein also the
Division Bench has held as under:
12.In the case of Rajat Hirabhai Motibhai & Ors. vs. Deputy
Collector(supra), the Division Bench of this Court, has held that
reading the language of sub-section (2) of Section 12 it suggests that
there is an obligation on the part of the Collector not merely to
intimate about the passing of the award but has to communicate the
essential contents of the award, if not a copy of the award.
Paragraph 3 of the Judgment, reads thus:-
"3. The question, therefore, is whether under sec. 12(2)of the
Land Acquisition Act, there is an obligation upon the Collector
merely to intimate about the passing of the award or he is obliged
to convey the matters contained in the award by serving either a
copy of the award or the essential part of it. In State of Punjab v.
Mst. Qaisar Jehan Begum, AIR 1963 SC 1604, the Supreme Court
had occasion to consider the purpose of the notice under Sec.
12(2) in the context of a plea as to whether mere knowledge of
the passing of the award would be sufficient as a starting point
reckoned for the purpose of filing a reference application. It is in
dealing with this that the Supreme Court observed:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
"Now, knowledge of the award does not mean a mere
knowledge of the fact that an award has been made. The
knowledge must relate to the essential contents of the award.
These contents may be known either actually or
constructively. If the award is communicated to a party
under Sec.12(2) of the Act, the party must be obviously fixed
with knowledge of the contents of the award whether he
reads it or not. Similarly when a party is present in Court
either personally or through his representative when the
award is made by the Collector, it must be presumed that he
knows the contents of the award. Having regard to the
scheme of the Act we think that knowledge of the award
must mean knowledge of the essential contents of the
award."
This Court has expressed the same view referring to the above said
decision in Rasulkhanjiv. H. P. Rathod, (1975) 16 Guj LR 911. In
this view, it is clear that there is -an obligation on the part of the
Collector not merely to intimate about the passing of the award
but he has to communicate the essential contents of the award, if
not a copy of the award. That has not been fulfilled in this case
and we direct that this shall be done within a month."
5. The sole contention taken by the learned AGP Mr.Rahul
Dave with regard to accepting the amount of
compensation if one would examine the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Ajit Singh and Ors Vs State
of Punjab and Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 67
wherein, the Apex Court has held as under:
Having regard to the contiguity of these lands the High Court is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
correct in its valuation. Besides, the date of notification, issued under
Section 4 of the Act, is 4.10.1978 while Exhibit R6 is nearer to it,
namely, 16.8.1978, in comparison to Exhibit A6 dated 14.1.1977.
Inasmuch as the appellants have filed an application for reference
under Section 18 of the Act that will manifest their intention.
Therefore, the protest against the award of the Collector is implied
notwithstanding the acceptance of compensation. The District Judge
and the High Court, therefore, fell into patent error in denying the
enhanced compensation to the appellants.
6. Considering the over all facts of the present case, in the
opinion of this Court, even if the compensation has been
accepted but without protest the claimant cannot be said
to be disentitled for enhancement of the amount and the
reference, in absence of satisfying the provisions of
section 12 (2), cannot be said to be barred by limitation.
In that background, the present appeals succeed and
allowed accordingly. The land reference cases be
remanded back to the learned reference Court and
restored to its original file and learned Court shall
decide the same on merits. As noted above, acquisition
proceedings were started in the year 1978 the learned
Court is directed to decided the references within a
period of six months from the date of receipt of this
order, after providing opportunity of hearing both the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/740/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/11/2025
undefined
parties and leading the evidence independently. It is
open for the parties to place on record the relevant
material in support of their claim.
7. Resultantly, these appeals are allowed. Record and
proceedings are sent back.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION:
In view of the judgment passed above, civil application is
disposed of.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
ARCHANA S. PILLAI
