Gujarat High Court
Jayaben Chaturbhai Marvaniya vs State Of Gujarat on 9 October, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4044/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4044 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4046 of 2024
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4049 of 2024
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✓
================================================================
JAYABEN CHATURBHAI MARVANIYA & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR KRUSHNAKANT D PATEL(10632) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, 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.471 of
2004, 478 of 2004 and 482 of 2004 respectively (Group of
LAR Nos.477 to 486 of 2004).
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Tejas P. Satta for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4044/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
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 Ms. Dharitri
Pancholi for the respondent No.1.
3. Brief facts:-
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 09.02.1993 and
under Section 6 notification was published on 14.09.1993.
The Land Acquisition Officer, under Section 11(1) of the
Act has awarded Rs.0.93 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
granting additional compensation at Rs.17/- per sq.m. for
the Bagayat land and Rs.9/- per sq.m. for Jirayat land.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4044/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
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 Jirayat
land and Rs.17/- for the Bagayat land. A reliance has been
placed upon the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4044/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
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.
5. 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 learned Reference
Court and therefore, claim for additional compensation at
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4044/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
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.
6. 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 appeal is in a very narrow compass.
7. 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/4044/2024 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/4044/2024 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4044/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
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
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."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4044/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
(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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4044/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
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.
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4044/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
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.
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 claimants are granted additional
compensation of Rs.24/- per sq.m. for the Jirayat land
(non-irrigated land) and Rs.32/- per sq.m. for the Bagayat
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4044/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/10/2025
undefined
land (irrigated land) with statutory benefits on the
differential amount.
13. Resultantly, the First Appeals are allowed. The
respondents shall deposit additional compensation at
Rs.15/- per sq.m. for bagayat land and Rs.15/- per sq.m.
for Jirayat land, before the learned Reference Court,
within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the receipt of
this order and on depositing the additional compensation
the learned Reference Court shall disburse the amount in
favour of the claimants after following due procedure.
14. Record and Proceedings to be sent back to
concerned Court/Tribunal forthwith.
(D. M. DESAI,J)
RINKU MALI
