Gujarat High Court
Deputy Collector And Land Acquisition ... vs Apabhai Kathadbhai on 27 November, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2630 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4929 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
DEPUTY COLLECTOR AND LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION
(IRRIGATION) RAJKOT & ORS.
Versus
APABHAI KATHADBHAI
================================================================
Appearance:
MR SHIVAM DIXIT and POOJA CHAUDHARY, AGPS for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2,3
UNSERVED EXPIRED (R) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 27/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. These appeals are preferred under Section 54 of Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
Code against the common judgment and decree dated 17.01.2017
passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge in Land Acquisition
Reference Case Nos.49 to 74 of 2002 and other allied references,
whereby group of land acquisition reference cases filed by the
claimants, came to be partly allowed.
2. At the outset, the Learned AGP for the appellant-State
drew attention of the Court to judgment and order dated
12.09.2025 passed by this Court in First Appeal No.2625 of 2018
and allied matters and submitted that the group of appeals arose
from the same acquisition proceedings and the present appeals
have been left out inadvertently from the said group of appeals and
therefore, same order is required to be passed in the present
appeals also.
3. Having heard Learned Advocates for the parties and
having perused the documents on record, it appears that the
present appeals stand on an identical footing with the aforesaid
group and nothing appears on record so as to take a different view.
4. In paras-16 to 19 of judgment and decree dated
12.09.2025, in First Appeal No.2625 of 2018 and allied matters,
this Court has observed as under:-
"16. The issue, therefore, is that whether the
learned Judge was right in determining the market
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
value adopting the Yield basis method and
correctly determining the additional
compensation. Pertinently, the evidence produced
on behalf of Special Land Acquisition Officer and
the State Government, was Exhibits 126 and 127
which were the sale deeds and as observed by the
learned Judge, one of them was a depressed (sic)
sale. Moreover, except producing the sale deeds,
contents thereof, were not proved by examining
the parties to the sale deed. It is well settled that
the Court is not bound to act upon the contents of
the documents of sale, merely because it was
accepted as evidence of transaction, unless the
persons connected with such documents give
evidence in Court substantiating the same. In the
case of P. Ram Reddy vs. Land Acquisition Officer
reported in (1995) 2 SCC 305, referred to in the
case of Defense Estate Officer vs. Lilaben reported
in (1998) 2 GLH 279, in paragraph 19, it is
observed thus:
"19. Certified copy of a document registered
under the Registration Act, 1908, but for the
above provision could have been only secondary
evidence which could have been accepted by the
court when primary evidence relating to the
original documents were shown to be unavailable.
Section 5 1-A of the LA Act, as seen therefrom, is
enacted to enable the parties in land acquisition
cases, to produce certified copies of documents, to
get over the difficulty of parties, in that, persons in
possession of the original documents would not be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
ready to put them in courts, for when once they
are put in Court, they cannot be sure, when they
could take their return from Court. However, the
mere fact that a certified copy of the document is
accepted as evidence of the transaction recorded
in such document does not dispense with the need
for a party relying upon the certified copies of
such documents produced in court in examining
witnesses connected with documents to establish
their genuineness and the truth of their contents.
Therefore, the certified copies of registered
documents, though accepted as evidence of
transactions recorded in such documents, the
court is not bound to act upon the contents of
those documents unless persons connected with
such documents give evidence in court as regards
them and such evidence is accepted by the Court
as true. But, when the LAO or the Collector has
made his award, based on the contents of
documents, as found in the registers kept under
the Registration Act and produces registration
copies of such documents in support of his award
in Court, they could be regarded acceptable as
evidence by Court given in support of the award
unless it is shown by contra-evidence on behalf
of the claimants that such documents could not
have been relied upon by the Collector or LAO in
making the award. It would be so for the reason
that when the LAO produces in court Registration
(certified) copies of those documents which he had
made the basis for determining the market value,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
that would be only to support his award and not to
establish something independent of the award. If
that be so, when such documents are produced on
behalf of the LAO in court, they cannot be rejected
on the ground that the wit- nesses associated with
those documents cannot be examined by the LAO,
inasmuch, even without producing such
documents he can rely upon the award made by
him to show that he had looked into those
documents and he had determined the market
value on their basis. Hence, the mere fact that
witnesses associated with such certified copies of
documents produced as evidence in court were not
examined on behalf of the LAO will not in any way
affect the award of the LAO, if he has determined
the market value of the acquired land having
perused those documents as found in the
Registers kept under the Registration Act or their
certified copies, before determining the market
value of those lands on the basis of such
documents."
17. Under the circumstances, reliance placed on
the judgment in the case of Shaji Kuriakose vs.
Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. (supra) to contend that the
market value indicated in the sale deeds ought to
have been accepted, is misplaced and would not
be of any help. There is no quarrel to the
proposition that mere production of the sale deeds
on the record and exhibiting the same, would not
establish the element of free sale which otherwise,
is important to determine the correct market value
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
mutually arrived at between the parties. As, in the
absence of any evidence of sale instances, the
learned Judge, has rightly adopted the Yield
Method. In a similar set of facts in the case of
Indian Oil Corporation, Siddhpur vs. Patel
Khushalbhai Joitram (supra), the Division Bench of
this Court, in paragraphs 21, 22, 31, 35 and 36
has observed thus:
"21. Thus, two sets of awards are placed on
record one for agricultural lands and one for lands
situated in Siddhpur city itself for widening the
road. On behalf of the appellat-I.O.C. it was
submitted that the lands are agricultural and
therefore considering the yield, price is required
to be determined.
22. Sec. 23 of the Act is the relevant provision
for determining the amount of compensation.
Section mandates to take into consideration the
aspects mentioned therein. Section points out that
for determining the market value of the land, the
date of publication of the notification under sec. 4
sub-sec 1 is relevant date. It also provides for the
damage if any sustained by the person interested
at the time of the Collector's taking possession of
land by reason of taking away standing crops
and trees as the land, severing such land from his
other land, injunction effect of the acquisition on
other movable or immovable properties, or
earning and the damages if any, bona fide
resulting from diminution of the profits of the land
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
between the time of the publication of the
declaration under Sec. 6 and the time of the
Collector's taking possession of the land. It further
provides that if in consequence of the acquisition
of the land by the Collector, the person interested
is compelled to change his residence or place of
business, the reasonable expenses if any incidental
to such change are to be considered. We are not
required to consider as to in addition to market
value of the land, what is required to be given as
it is already indicated in the award and there is no
grievance about that. Under the circumstances,
the court will require to bear in mind the aforesaid
aspects.
31. In view of what we have stated hereinabove,
we are of the view that for determining the market
price of the agricultural lands, the court is
required to consider the use of land, restriction
imposed by other provisions to put it to a different
use and the development that has already taken
place at the time when the notification was issued.
The development, if it was at the relevant time in
progress, was required to be considered. But in
absence of any evidence pointing out
development nearby the lands at the relevant
time, the court will have to determine the market
price of agricultural lands on the yield basis. The
reference court has awarded compensation @
Rs.70/- per sq.mtr. and Rs.65/- per sq.mtr. In our
view, even considering the yield and the likely
development, the price is determined, it cannot be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
at the rate at which the price is determined by the
Reference Court. Following aspects were required
to be taken into consideration:
1) The lands were outside the limits of Siddhpur
Municipality and at a distance of 2 km. on the
national highway. Some parcels were near the
railway track.
2) The lands were used as agricultural lands.
3) In view of the provisions contained in the
Tenancy Act, the use was restricted.
4) There is no evidence of any development
near about the lands acquired. Witness, Natwarlal,
was examined by the claimants to indicate higher
price and to prove document executed in 1993.
From his evidence, it is clear that even in 1993
there was no development.
5) The awards relied upon cannot be taken into
consideration as the lands in those awards were
acquired much before and situated within the
limits of Siddhpur for widening the road.
There is no evidence indicating any development
whatsoever adjoining to the lands in question
which were acquired or within the vicinity of 2
km. Even within the Siddhpur limit, there is
nothing to indicate that there was development
near the city limits. The evidence of the claimant
reveals that the claimants were getting net profit
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
of Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.
35. In the instant case, there is evidence for the
purpose of development outside Siddhpur limits.
G.I.D.C. has acquired vast area for industrial
development. Therefore, in our view, considering
the yield and likely development, the amount is
required to be determined. Considering the
evidence, the claimants stated that they used to
earn Rs.10,000/per year but in view of vague
statement it would be difficult to put absolute
reliance on the income aspect but at the same
time it is required to be borne in mind that the
State Government has not produced any evidence.
The witness Tulsibhai in his evidence has not
given any indication about the amount required to
be spent for the purpose of cultivation etc. The
Apex Court has pointed out in STATE OF
GUJARAT & OTHERS V/S RAMA RANA & OTHERS
REPORTED IN 1997(3)G.L.R. 1954 that:
"The Reference court also found that the witnesses
exaggerated the yield. On that basis, it determined
the market value after deducting 1/3rd towards
prices @ Rs.325 per Acre. It would be common
knowledge that expenditure would be involved in
raising and harvesting the crops and that,
therefore, on an average 50% of the value of the
crop realised would go toward cultivation
expenses. Therefore, deduction of 1/3rd was not
correct in determining the compensation of the
lands on the basis of the yield."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
The Apex Court further pointed out that:
"normally, they should have produced the
statistics from the Agricultural Department as to
the nature of the crops and the prices prevailing at
that time. But unfortunately, neither claimants nor
the Government took any steps to adduce the best
evidence. It is a fact that the Government has
failed to adduce any evidence in that behalf.
However, we cannot reject the oral evidence of the
witnesses on that ground alone. The court has
statutory duty to the society to subject the oral
evidence to great scrutiny, applying the test of
normal prudent man, i.e., whether he would be
willing to purchase the land at the rates proposed
by the Court. On the touch-stone of this, the Court
should evaluate the evidence objectively and
dispassionately and reach a finding on
compensation."
36. Thus, in absence of any evidence, the court
pointed out that 50% of the amount is required to
be deducted towards the expenditure and
multiplier of 10 is required to be given. Reading
the said principle, even if we read the evidence
suggesting that the claimant was earning
Rs.8,000/- to Rs.10,000/- net per year, it is difficult
to place reliance on that figure as no reliable
evidence is produced and evidence is vague. The
witness has not given the details about the market
price with respect to the crops indicated in his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
evidence or price offered by the Agricultural
Produce Market Committee in this behalf. The
claimants could have produced evidence in this
behalf by examining a person from the Agriculture
Produce Market Committee established under the
Agriculture Produce Market Act. The witness has
not stated about the seeds, labour charges,
electricity charges or anything and thus, vague
evidence is given and in view of this, we would be
justified in deducting 50% from the sum of
Rs.10,000/-. The net income would be Rs.5,000/-
per bigha. Considering the fact that one bigha is
equal to 1600 sq.mtr., as stated by the learned
A.G.P., net profit per sq.mtr. would be Rs.3.125ps.
To which multiplier of 10 is required to be applied
and the price would be Rs.31.25ps. These
claimants would be getting on the basis of yield."
18. It is equally well settled that it would not be
possible to determine the compensation with
mathematical precision. Assessment in such
matters is bound to involve a certain degree of
guess work which would be inevitable. One also
needs to keep in mind that when the matter
relates to compensation to the land losers, if at all
two views are possible, then in that case the
view advancing the cause of justice needs to be
taken into account rather than the view which
may put the land losers in a vulnerable position.
19. Therefore, the learned Judge, in the
considered opinion of this Court, has rightly
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2630/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/11/2025
undefined
adopted the Yield Method applying the principle
laid down by this Court in the case of Indian Oil
Corporation, Siddhpur vs. Patel Khushalbhai
Joitram (supra) and no error can be said to have
been committed in awarding the additional
amount of compensation. Therefore, in the
absence of any error committed or illegality or
perversity pointed out, the appeals do not warrant
interference and are hereby dismissed.
5. Accordingly, following the reasoning recorded in the
judgment stated above, these appeals do not warrant interference
and is required to be dismissed accordingly. The impugned
judgment and decree dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Additional
Senior Civil Judge in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.49 to 74
of 2002 and other allied references is upheld.
6. R&P be sent back to the concerned Reference Court.
Sd/-
(A.Y. KOGJE, J)
Sd/-
(J. L. ODEDRA, J)
SHITOLE
