Gujarat High Court
Dosani Abhrambhai Dadmohmmadbhai vs Gujarat State Through Special Ladn ... on 17 November, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO.3528 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
DOSANI ABHRAMBHAI DADMOHMMADBHAI & ORS.
Versus
GUJARAT STATE THROUGH SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER &
ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AB GATESHANIYA(3766) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5,6
MR MANOHAR RAHEVAR, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 17/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present First Appeal, the appellants herein -
original claimants have challenged the judgment and
award dated 6.4.2011 passed by the learned Principal
Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar in Land Acquisition
Reference Case No.71 of 2011.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. A. B. Gateshaniya for the
appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Manohar Rahevar for the respondents. Perused the record.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
3. Learned advocate for the appellants at the outset
contended that the lands bearing revenue survey No.1765
paiki Hector 1-46-32 of village Jambu, Taluka Limbadi,
District Surendranagar was acquired by the acquiring body
for the construction of canal of Narmada project.
Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1889 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "the Act")
were published on 1.12.1997 and 8.5.1998 respectively.
The land of the parties was acquired in respect of Land
Acquisition Case No.23 of 1993. The Land Acquisition
Officer fixed market value of the land at Rs.42,756/-. The
award was assailed by the appellants herein before the
learned reference Court, however, the learned reference
Court rejected the reference on the ground of limitation.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the
present appeal.
4. It is further contended that the reference proceedings
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
under Section 18 of the Act which was preferred by the
claimant - appellant was well within the limitation. It is
submitted that the respondent herein did not issue notice
as required in sub section (2) of Section 12 of the Act which
mandates that the Collector shall give immediate notice of
his award to the persons interested who are not present
personally or by their representatives when the award is
made. It is an undisputed fact that on the date of
pronouncement of the award dated 28.2.1999, neither
claimants nor their representatives were present and,
therefore, the Collector was under the legal duty to issue
notice of intimating award. However, if the notice dated
28.2.1999 is perused, no details with regard to the
awarded amount has been mentioned. Even the names of
appellants are not mentioned in the notice. It is therefore
submitted that the notice exhibit 69 cannot be termed as a
notice as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act. It is
further submitted that in the report dated 19.4.2001 which
was submitted by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, in
Clause No.4, the learned Collector has specifically
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
mentioned that the reference proceeding is within the
period limitation. However, learned reference Court erred
in interpreting Section 69 notice and found that the
reference proceeding is beyond the period of limitation.
5. It is further contended that in the cases where the notice is
served upon the claimants, the period of limitation for
challenging the award is 42 days and in the cases where
the notice under Section 12(2) is not served upon
claimants, the period of limitation is 6 months within which
the interested persons may challenge the impugned award.
In the present case, notice as contemplated under Section
12(2) of the Act has not been served upon the claimants.
The reference proceedings which was initiated on
14.6.1999 is within the period of limitation.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts, learned advocate for the
appellants prayed for remand of the proceedings for fresh
adjudication on merits. No other submissions are
canvassed except the above.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
7. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Manohar Rahevar for the respondents has supported
the impugned judgment and award and further contended
that the reference proceeding was beyond the period of
limitation. It is contended that when the notice was tried to
be served upon the claimants, the appellants refused to
accept the notice. Notice was sent to all appellants by
Registered Post AD which was duly served upon appellants
on 26.2.1999. It is, therefore, contended that the reference
Court has rightly held that the reference proceedings are
beyond the period of limitation. No other submissions are
canvassed except the above.
8. I have considered the submissions canvassed by learned
advocates for the respective parties and also perused the
record and proceedings.
9. On perusal of record and proceedings, the limited question
which is required to be answered in this appeal is whether
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
Exhibit 69 can be construed as a notice as contemplated
under Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act. To answer
the controversy, it would be profitable to refer at this stage
Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act which is
reproduced hereunder:
Section 12 of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894:
(2) The Collector shall give immediate notice of
his award to such of the persons interested as
are not present personally or by their
representatives when the award is made.
10. Sub section (2) of Section 12 of the Act mandates the
Collector to give immediate notice of his award to persons
interested who were not present or were not represented
by their representatives when the award is made. It is not
the case of the respondents herein that the appellants
were personally present or their representatives were
present when the award is made. Exhibit 69 is the notice
issued by the learned Collector on 20.2.1999. If the said
notice is perused, it appears that the notice is a cryptic
notice and is issued in mechanical manner and names of
appellants are not mentioned in the notice. The notice also
does not indicate the amount of price of the land which has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
been assessed by the land acquisition officer. The notice
only indicates in the compensation column "as per award".
The notice also does not indicate the amount which has
been awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. The purpose
of giving an immediate notice of the award is to see that
the land losers who have lost their precious land in the
acquisition proceedings must know the determination of
the valuation of the lands so that if the land owners are not
satisfied with the assessment of the price of the land, they
can raise their objections and thereafter the objections can
be referred to the learned Reference Court under Section
18 of the Act by the Collector. The report dated 19.4.2001
prepared by the Special Land Acquisition Officer produced
at page No.139 of the paper-book indicates that in clause
No.4, it is mentioned that the reference proceeding is
within limitation and the reasons assigned in such column
is non-acceptance of notice under Section 12(2) of the Act
by claimants. Thus, as per the report submitted by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer and also as per the chart
with regard to the service of notice to the appellants as
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
well as other owners of different lands produced at page
number 203 of the paper book, indicates that the notice
has not been accepted by the appellants. Until the
essential content of the award were brought to the
knowledge of parties affected by actually communicating
award, no valid notice under Section 12(2) of the Act can
be said to have been served upon claimants. Mere issuing
a notice without mentioning the amount of award and
other required details by Land Acquisition Officer in
determining the award, in stricto senso, Exh.69 is not a
notice as contemplated under Section 12(2) of the Act.
11. Thus, on considering the evidence on record, it is
established fact surfaces on record that the notice under
Section 12(2) of the Act has not been received by the
appellants which is mandatory under the Land Acquisition
Act. The learned reference Court, in my view has faulted in
considering Exhibit 69, a notice as contemplated under
Section 12(2) of the Act.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
12. As discussed herein above, the notice Exh.69 lacks details
of the award and, therefore, Exh.69 cannot be termed as a
notice which is contemplated under Section 12(2) of the
Act. It is absolutely non application of mind on the part of
the authority while issuing notice Exh.69.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the
impugned judgment and award dated 6.4.2011 passed by
the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar in
Land Acquisition Reference Case No.71 of 2011 is required
to be quashed and set aside. Order accordingly. The Land
Acquisition Reference Case in question is hereby remanded
back to the learned Reference Court for fresh
consideration. The appellants herein - original claimants as
well as respondents are permitted to lead the evidence,
documentary as well as oral, and shall cooperate the
learned Reference Court in expeditious hearing of the
reference case. The learned Reference Court shall decide
the reference case on remand on merits within a period of
6 (Six) Months from the date of receipt of the present
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/3528/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 17/11/2025
undefined
judgment / order.
14. The appeal is allowed in above terms. The Record &
Proceedings may be sent back to the concerned Court
forthwith. Interim Relief, if any, stands vacated forthwith.
Direct Service is permitted. No order as to costs.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
vk
