Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Natubhai Motibhai Patel on 3 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2803/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2803 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
NATUBHAI MOTIBHAI PATEL
================================================================
Appearance:
MS FORUM TRIVEDI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2
MR KAPIL K ACHARYA(2650) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 03/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the
common judgment and award dated 27.10.2009 passed by the
learned Reference Court being learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Surendranagar in LAR Nos.306 to 322 of 2001 whereby, the Reference
Court has awarded Rs.90/- per square meter for the acquired lands as
an additional compensation, over and above the compensation
awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer together with solatium and
interest.
2. The facts of the present case are that the appellants have
acquired the lands situated at Village: Kherali, Taluka: Wadhwan,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2803/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
District: Surendranagar for public purpose of construction of erecting
Narmada Canal by issuing Notifications under Section 4 and 6 of the
Land Acquisition Act. After affording opportunity of being heard, the
award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was passed by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer in LAQ Case No. 238/1995, 244/1995
& 21/1997 and awarded the compensation at Rs.31,200/- per Hector
for non-irrigated lands and Rs.46,800/- per Hector for irrigated lands.
Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the
aforesaid Land Reference Cases before the Reference Court whereby,
the Reference Court awarded additional compensation at Rs.90/- per
square meter for irrigated lands vide its judgment and award dated
27.10.2009.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard Ms. Forum Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the appellants and Mr. Kapil K. Acharya, learned counsel for the
respondent - claimant.
5. It appears that during the pendency of this appeal, another
group of appeals filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat, which
covers the issue involved in the present appeal, were withdrawn in
the Lok Adalat. Since the claim in the said appeals was settled in the
Lok Adalat and the amount involved in the present appeal is
exceeded the limit, the State Government cannot be permitted to
contest the appeal/s and challenge the impugned judgment and
award in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Shivappa Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer and others
reported in 2023 LiveLaws SC 312. Relevant observations at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2803/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
paragraphs 9 to 11 are reproduced herein below for benefits:-
"9. In the said case also, the Reference Court had granted
compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250/- per acre. The High
Court, vide order dated 8.3.2016 has allowed the said appeal(s)
to be withdrawn and the same had been placed on record
before this Court in I. A. No.59170 of 2016. Though a period of
more than six years had lapsed, the said position is not
contested by the respondents.
10. The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to
adopt an attitude of pick and choose.
11. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court
in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to
adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an
attitude smacks of patent discrimination."
6. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, since
the appellant does not dispute the fact that the appellant either, after
having preferred appeals, some appeals had withdrawn as the claim
as per the Circular was petty claim and thereafter, merely on account
of the fact that the additional amount awarded to the present
claimants exceeds the cut-off for a petty claim, the State would not be
permitted to question the same, more particularly since the State has
accepted the very same award of the learned Reference Court with
regard to other claimants. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court,
such an attitude would smack of patent discrimination and cannot be
countenanced.
7. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. If the appellants
have not deposited the amount then the same shall be deposited
before the Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/2803/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/10/2025
undefined
date of receipt of this order. If the amount is deposited by the
appellants before the Reference Court, the same shall be disbursed in
favour of the claimant after verifying his bank details through RTGS /
NEFT. Registry is directed to send back the record and proceedings to
the Reference Court forthwith. No order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
Dolly
