Gujarat High Court

Sumar Osman Patel vs Deputy Collector Land Acquisition And ... on 6 October, 2025

                                                                                                             NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/FA/249/2023                                 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

                                                                                                             undefined




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 249 of 2023

                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 250 of 2023
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 251 of 2023
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 252 of 2023
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 569 of 2024
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 629 of 2024
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 690 of 2024
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1672 of 2024
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1733 of 2024
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4034 of 2024
                                                            With
                                                R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4114 of 2024
                      ==========================================================
                                           SUMAR OSMAN PATEL
                                                  Versus
                           DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION &
                                                   ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
                      MR.RAHUL DAVE AGP ADVANCE COPY SERVED for Defendant(s) No. 1
                      RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 2
                      ==========================================================

                         CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                                        Date : 06/10/2025

                                                      COMMON ORAL ORDER

1. The present First Appeals have been filed by the

respective claimants challenging the Judgment and Award

dated 25.02.2013 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/249/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

Judge, Khambhaliya in group of LAR Nos.135, 130, 131,

134, 139, 132, 137, 129, 136, 138, 133 of 1993

respectively in group LAR Nos.129 to 139 of 1993.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Tejas Satta for the

appellants and learned Assistant Government Pleader

Mr.Rahul Dave for respondent - State in the respective

appeal. Though served, none appeared for respondent No.2

3. Upon request of learned advocates for the

parties, all appeals are heard and decided together by a

common order as the issues and submissions are common.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

4.1 The land of claimant/s situated in village -

Bhenakvad, Taluka: Bhanvad, District: Jamnagar was

acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for the purpose of

Vartun-2 Irrigation Scheme. Notification under Section 4 of

the Act was published on 26.07.1990 and under Section 6

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/249/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

was published on 05.07.1991. The Land Acquisition

Officer, under Section 11(1) of the Act declared the award

and awarded Rs.2/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat land, Rs.1.5/-

per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land and Rs.0.01 per sq. mtr. for

Kharaba land. The award of the Land Acquisition Officer

came to be challenged by the land owners under Section

18 of the Act, by way of reference proceedings. The

learned Reference Court allowed the reference cases by

granting compensation at Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. for Bagayat

land, Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land and Rs.1/- per

sq. mtr. for Kharaba land.

4.2 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award,

original claimants have filed respective First Appeals.

5. Learned advocate for the appellants contended

that the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition

Officer was too meager. The claimants had sought

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/249/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

compensation at Rs.20/- per sq. meter for the acquired

land. After considering the evidence led by applicants

regarding their income from the acquired land, the learned

Reference Court observed that the claimants are entitled to

compensation at Rs.25.23/- per sq. meter for the acquired

land. However, since the claimants claimed Rs.20/- per sq.

meter for the acquired land and ultimately, awarded

compensation at Rs.15/- per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land,

Rs.20/- per sq. mtr. for the Bagayat land and Rs.1/- per

sq. mtr. for Kharaba land.

5.1 Learned advocate for the appellants has placed

reliance upon the decisions in the case of Ashok Kumar and

Anr. Vs. State of Hariyana reported in (2016) 4 SCC 544 and

Narendra and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426.

5.2 By relying upon the aforesaid two decisions,

learned advocate for the appellants contended that, while

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/249/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

awarding compensation, the Reference Court is required to

consider the maximum reasonable compensation. It is

further contended that the claimants, who have lost their

land in the process of acquisition, are entitled to fair, just

and reasonable compensation. It is, therefore, submitted

that the claimants may be granted compensation at the

rate of Rs.25.23 per sq. mtr. for the acquired land.

6. Per contra, learned AGP contended that the

learned Reference Court has awarded just and reasonable

compensation. It is further contended that the claimants,

who claimed compensation at Rs.20/- per sq. meter for the

acquired land and the learned Reference Court awarded

compensation at Rs.25.23/- per sq. mtr. for acquired land

is uncalled for, and the same request may be rejected.

7. Having considered the submissions canvassed by

learned advocates for the parties and averments made in

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/249/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

the appeals as well as perused the materials placed on

record, and more particularly, the decisions of the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Anr.(Supra) and

Narendra and Others (Supra), the issue involved in the

present appeals, is in a very narrow compass.

8. In the case of Ashok Kumar (Supra) in paragraph

No.7, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-

"The pre-amended provision puts a cap on the maximum: the compensation by court should not be beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, puts a cap on the minimum: compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner."

9. While determining the question of compensation

the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that a gap on maximum

compensation was put in pre-amendment provision but as

per the amendment in the year 1984, a gap on minimum

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/249/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by

the Land Acquisition Collector. The gap on maximum

compensation having been expressly omitted, and the gap

is put only minimum compensation, a duty is caste upon

the Court to award just and fair compensation taking into

consideration a true market value and other relevant

factors, irrespective of the claim of land owners.

10. In the case of Narendra (Supra), in paragraph

Nos.5 and 8, the Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the

issue on the award of just and fair compensation and has

observed as under:-

"5. After hearing the counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the issue has already been settled by this Court in Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana wherein it is held that it is the duty of the court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of claim made by the landowner and there is no cap on the maximum rate of compensation that can be awarded by the court and the courts are not restricted to awarding only that amount that has been claimed by the landowners/applicants in their application before it. The relevant paragraphs of this judgment are quoted as under: (SCC pp. 546-48, paras 6-7 & 10-11)

"6. Prior to Amendment Act 68 of 1984, the amount of compensation that could be awarded by the Court was

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/249/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

limited to the amount claimed by the applicant. Section 25 read as under:

25. Rules as to amount of compensation.- (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to any notice given under Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section 11.

(2) When the applicant has refused to make such claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded by the court shall in no case exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.

(3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the amount awarded to him by the court shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount awarded by the Collector.

The amended Section 25 reads as under:

25. Amount of compensation awarded by court not to be lower than the amount awarded by the Collector. The amount of compensation awarded by the Court shall not be less than the amount awarded by the Collector under Section

11.'

The amendment has come into effect on 24-9-1984.

7. The pre-amended provision puts a cap on the maximum; the compensation by court should not be beyond the amount claimed. The amendment in 1984, on the contrary, puts a cap on the minimum: compensation cannot be less than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector. The cap on maximum having been expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of compensation that a court can award is no longer restricted to the amount claimed by the applicant. It is the duty of the court to award just and fair compensation taking into consideration the true market value and other relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made by the owner.

9. In Bhag Singh v. UT of Chandigarh, this Court held that there may be situations where the amount higher than the amount claimed may be awarded to the claimant. The Court observed: (SCC p. 741, para 3)

'3.... It must be remembered that this was not a dispute

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/249/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

between two private citizens where it would be quite just and legitimate to confine the claimant to the claim made by him and not to award him any higher amount than that claimed though even in such a case there may be situations where an amount higher than that claimed can be awarded to the claimant as for instance where an amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account. Here was a claim made by the appellants against the State Government for compensation for acquisition of their land and under the law, the State was bound to pay to the appellants compensation on the basis of the market value of the land acquired and if according to the judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, the market value of the land acquired was higher than that awarded by the Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional District Judge, there is no reason why the appellants should have been denied the benefit of payment of the market value so determined. To deny this benefit to the appellants would tantamount to permitting the State Government to acquire the land of the appellants on payment of less than the true market value. There may be cases where, as for instance, under agrarian reform legislation, the holder of land may, legitimately, as a matter of social justice with a view to eliminating concentration of land in the hands of a few and bringing about its equitable distribution, be deprived of land which is not being personally cultivated by him or which is in excess of the ceiling area with payment of little compensation or no compensation at all, but where land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the holder of his land without payment of the true market value when the law, in so many terms, declares that he shall be paid such market value.'

10. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal, this Court held that under the amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the Court can grant a higher compensation than that claimed by the applicant in his pleadings....

11. Further, in Bhimasha v. LAO, a three-Judge Bench reiterated the principle in Bhag Singh and rejected the contention that a higher compensation than that claimed by the owner in his pleadings cannot be awarded by the Court." (emphasis supplied)

8. The purpose and objective behind the aforesaid provision is salutary in nature. It is kept in mind that those landowners who are agriculturist in most of the cases, and whose land is acquired for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/249/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially determined. which becomes a fair compensation, benefit thereof is to be given even to those who could not approach the court. It is with this aim the aforesaid provision is incorporated by the legislature. Once we keep the aforesaid purpose in mind. the mere fact that the compensation which was claimed by some of the villagers was at lesser rate than the compensation which is ultimately determined to be fair compensation, should not be a ground to deny such persons appropriate and fair compensation on the ground that they claimed compensation at a lesser rate. In such cases, strict rule of pleadings are not be made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the paramount consideration. It is to be kept in mind that in the matter of compulsory acquisition of lands by the Government, the villagers whose land gets acquired are not willing parties. It was not their voluntary act to sell off their land. They were compelled to give the land to the State for public purpose. For this purpose, the consideration which is to be paid to them is also not of their choice. On the contrary, as per the scheme of the Act, the rate at which compensation should be paid to the persons divested of their land is determined by the Land Acquisition Collector. The Scheme further provides that his determination is subject to judicial scrutiny in the form of reference to the District Judge and appeal to the High Court, etc. In order to ensure that the landowners are given proper compensation, the Act provides for "fair compensation". Once such a fair compensation is determined judicially, all landowners whose land was taken away by the same notification should become the beneficiary thereof. Not only it is an aspect of good governance, failing to do so would also amount to discrimination by giving different treatment to the persons though identically situated. On technical grounds, like the one adopted by the High Court in the impugned judgment, this fair treatment cannot be denied to them."

11. In paragraph no.5, the Hon'ble Apex Court has

also taken into consideration the decision of Ashok Kumar

(Supra). It has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

paragraph No.8 in the case of Narendra (supra) that strict

rule of pleadings are not to be made applicable and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/249/2023 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

undefined

rendering substantial justice to the parties has to be the

paramount consideration.

12. The purpose behind the enactment of the Land

Acquisition Act is to ensure that the landowners who have

lost their land and livelihood due to acquisitions are

awarded just and reasonable compensation. Such

compensation must be determined based on the market

value of the land. For determining the market value of

land, out of various relevant factors, one of the factor is

the yield basis i.e. how much income earned by

applicant/s from the land, which is acquired by the

acquiring body.

In the present case, learned Reference Court

after considering the evidence on record, observed and

come to the conclusion that the appellants are entitled to

compensation at the rate of Rs.25.23 per sq. meter.







                                                                                                        NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/FA/249/2023                           ORDER DATED: 06/10/2025

                                                                                                       undefined

However, learned Reference Court awarded compensation

at the rate of Rs.20/- per sq. meter for Bagayat land,

Rs.15/- per sq. meter for Jirayat land and Rs.1/- per sq.

meter for Kharaba land. In my view, the approach of

learned Reference Court, is against the settled proposition

of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

of Ashok Kumar (Supra) and Narendra (supra).

13. Considering the law laid down in the aforesaid

decisions, more particularly, since the learned Reference

Court has undisputedly observed that the landowners are

entitled to more compensation than claimed, in my view,

the learned Reference Court has committed an error by