Gujarat High Court

Mavjibhai Karamshibhai vs State Of Gujarat on 9 October, 2025

                                                                                                                 NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/FA/4045/2024                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025

                                                                                                                  undefined




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                                                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4045 of 2024
                                                                  With
                                                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4047 of 2024
                                                                  With
                                                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4048 of 2024
                                                                  With
                                                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4050 of 2024

                        FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
                        ================================================================
                                     Approved for Reporting                    Yes           No
                                                                                             ✓
                        ================================================================
                                                     MAVJIBHAI KARAMSHIBHAI & ORS.
                                                                 Versus
                                                       STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                        ================================================================
                        Appearance:
                        MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
                        MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
                        MR RAHUL DAVE, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
                        ROHAN LAVKUMAR(9248) for the Defendant(s) No. 2
                        ================================================================
                           CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI

                                                           Date : 09/10/2025
                                                       COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The present First Appeals have been filed by the respective

claimants challenging the Judgment and Award dated

29.09.2017 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Morbi in group of LAR Nos.604 of 2004, 603 of 2004, 608 of

2004 and 605 of 2004 respectively (Group of LAR Nos.603 to

613 of 2004).






                                                                                                           NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/FA/4045/2024                            JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025

                                                                                                           undefined

2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas P. Satta for the

appellants, learned advocate Mr. Aaditya Dave with learned

advocate Mr. Nisarg Trivedi for learned advocate Mr. Rohan

Lavkumar for the respondent No.2 and learned Assistant

Government Pleader Mr. Rahul Dave for the respondent No.1.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1. The land of the claimants situated in village Aadarna

Taluka Morbi, District Morbi was acquired by the Acquisition

Officer for the purpose of Narmada Canal named Morbi Shakha

Nehar. The notification under Section 4 of the Act was

published on 17.10.1992 and under Section 6 notification was

published on 07.07.1993. The Land Acquisition Officer, under

Section 11(1) of the Act has awarded Rs.0.62 paisa, as

compensation for Jirayat 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 reference cases by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4045/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025

undefined

granting additional compensation at Rs.17 per sq.m. for the

Bagayat land and Rs.9 per sq.m. for Jirayat land.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award the

original claimants have filed respective First Appeals.

5. Learned advocate for the appellants contended that the

award of Land Acquisition Officer awarding compensation was

too meager, and the claimants claimed compensation at Rs.17

per sq.m. for the Bagayat land and Rs.9 per sq.m. for the Jirayat

land. The learned Reference Court after considering Exh.30

which is the decisions under Land Reference Cases for the

acquisition of land of village Lalpar, which is adjacent to the

village land of the appellants. Though learned Reference Court

observeed that claimants are entitled to additional compensation

at Rs.32 per sq.m for the Bagayat land and Rs.24 per sq.m. for

Jirayat land but the claim of the claimants was Rs.17 per sq.m.

for the Bagayat land and Rs.9 per sq.m. for the Jirayat land,

appellants were awarded additional compensation at Rs.9 for

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4045/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025

undefined

Jirayat land and Rs.17 for the Bagayat land. A reliance has been

placed upon the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar and Anr.

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

decision in the case of Narendra and Others Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and Others reported in (2017) 9 SCC 426. By relying

upon the aforesaid two decisions, learned advocate for the

appellants contended that, while granting compensation, the

Reference Court has to consider a compensation which is

maximum, and the claimants who have lost their land in the

process of acquisition, may be granted reasonable, fair and just

compensation. It is therefore, contended that the claimants be

granted additional compensation at Rs.24 per sq.m. for Jirayat

land and Rs.32 per sq.m. for Bagayat land.

6. Per contra, learned advocate for respondents contended

that learned Reference Court has awarded just and reasonable

compensation. It is further contended that the claimants who

claimed compensation at Rs.17 per sq.m. for the irrigated land

and Rs.9 per sq.m. for the non-irrigated land were granted by the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4045/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025

undefined

learned Reference Court and therefore, claim for additional

compensation at Rs.32 per sq.m. for Bagayat and Rs.24 per

sq.m. for the Jirayat land, is uncalled for, and the same request

may be rejected.

7. Having considered the submissions and the papers 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 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."

While determining the question of compensation the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4045/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025

undefined

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

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 the land owners.

9. 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 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)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4045/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025

undefined

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

(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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4045/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025

undefined

awarded to the claimant. The Court observed: (SCC p. 741, para 3)

'3.... It must be remembered that this was not a dispute 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 public purpose should get fair compensation. Once a particular rate of compensation is judicially

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/FA/4045/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025

undefined

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."

10. 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 para 8 in the case

of Narendra (supra) that strict rule of pleadings are not to be

made applicable and rendering substantial justice to the parties

has to be the paramount consideration.





                                                                                                         NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/FA/4045/2024                          JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025

                                                                                                         undefined

11. The purpose behind the enactment of the Land Acquisition

Act is to see that, the land owners who have lost the lands and

the livelihood because of acquisitions of their lands must receive

just and reasonable compensation. The compensation has to

determined on the market value of the land. For determining the

marketing value of the land, out of various factors, one of the

factors is the consideration of the decision rendered in Land

Reference Cases of the land, which is either adjacent/nearby the

land which is acquired by the acquiring body. In the present

case the learned Reference Court considered the decision of

village Lalpar, which as per the submissions of learned advocate

of the appellants is an adjacent to the land of village Lalpar.

Though learned Reference Court found appellants are entitled to

compensation as awarded to the land owners of village Lalpar

but held that since claimants have claimed less compensation,

learned Reference Court awarded compensation which was

claimed by appellants.








                                                                                                          NEUTRAL CITATION




                              C/FA/4045/2024                           JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025

                                                                                                          undefined

12. 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). Considering the law laid down in the aforesaid

decisions, and more particularly undisputedly the learned

Reference Court has observed that, land owners are entitled to

more compensation than claimed, in my opinion the learned

Reference Court has committed an error by granting additional

compensation of Rs.17/- per sq.m. for irrigated land and Rs.9

per sq.m. for non-irrigated land. I am of the opinion that the

appellants are entitled for the maximum compensation and the

purpose of the enactment of the Act, would be satisfied, if the