Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer/General Manager vs Rabari Danabhai Savdanbhai on 11 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4183 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
RABARI DANABHAI SAVDANBHAI & ANR.
==========================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
A R ROCKEY(7592) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent No.2
==========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 11/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") challenging
the impugned judgment and award dated 24.03.2017 passed by the learned
2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa, District: Banaskantha in Land
Acquisition Reference No.75 of 2012 (main case) and other allied matters.
By the said common judgment and award, the learned Judge has partly
allowed the Reference and has enhanced the amount of compensation
determining the market value of land acquired at the rate of Rs.157/- paise
per square meter. Apart from the said enhancement amount of
compensation, the learned Judge has also awarded consequential statutory
benefits of solatium along with the interest.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the agriculture lands of
respondents - original claimants situated at Village Paladi, Taluka: Deesa,
District Banaskantha have been permanently acquired for the purpose of
constructing new broad gauze railway line of Patan - Bhildi vide Land
Acquisition Case No. 4 of 2009. For the purpose of acquisition, the award
has been declared as per rate of Rs. 24.25 per square meter on 11.02.2011
and paid compensation to the respondents. It is contended that thereafter,
the original claimants had preferred a reference cases before the Special
Land Acquisition Officer claiming being as original value of the land should
be Rs. 1000/- per square meter, but it was decided only Rs. 24.25 per
square meter. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued.
2.1 That the amount of award on the basis of the comparison with the
land bearing survey No. 26, approach road and road land etc. In respect of
these lands, the award of Rs. 431 per square meter following the rates of
year 2015 as per exhibit 21 based on such land has been converted into
non-agriculture situated near the road.
2.2 The appellant has filed the written statements in each reference
cases wherein it has been stated that the fixed compensation is just and
proper after considering quality of the acquired land and surrounding sale
transactions. At the time of hearing, claimant has not produced any single
documents to decide the rate of compensation and the dispute nor
objection has been raised.
2.3 After hearing the respective parties and considering the evidence on
record and after framing the issues and after considering the decision of
Hon'ble Apex Court in cases of O. Janardhan Reddy vs. Special Deputy
Collector reported in 1994 6 SCC 456, The General Manager, Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and
Anr. reported in 2008 0 SCC 1154, Trishala Jain and Anr. vs. State
of Uttarachal and Anr. reported in 2011(6) SCC 47, State of Madhya
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
Pradesh vs. Kashiram (dead) by L.Rs. reported in 2010(14) SCC 506
and Prabhakar Ragunath Patil and Ors vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2010 (13) SCC 104, the learned Judge has partly allowed the
reference and directed the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of
Rs.157/- per square meter for the acquired agricultural land considering the
rate of Rs.431/- per square meter in favour of the claimant.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 - claimant and learned Assistant
Government Pleader, for respondent No.2.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted the same
facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that
learned Judge has committed an error in law and facts in considering the
rate Rs.431/- per square meter as compensation. It is submitted that in the
present case, the lands were acquired in the year 2010 and accordingly, the
price of the land prevailing in the year 2015 cannot be compared with the
land acquired in the year 2010. It is also submitted that the learned Judge
ought to have considered the fact that the compared lands are non-
agricultural land and near the road and so it is valuable, whereas, the lands
of the claimant is agricultural and located from the same and, therefore, the
claimant is not entitled to obtain price according to the compared lands. It
is further submitted that learned Judge has committed an error in relying
upon Exhibit 21, valuation of the lands has been done by the District
Valuation Committee on 29.06.2015 while the notification under Section 4
pertains to the acquisition of land is 30.03.2010. It is submitted that in
Exhibit 21, it has been specifically stated that there cannot be any other
additional evidence than the present one to award the compensation, which
pertains to valuation of having difference of about 5 years and hence, the
award is based only on an evidence, therefore, the increase compensation
is inadequate. It is submitted that the learned Judge has, while passing the
impugned judgment and award, misinterpreted the decision of the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
Supreme Court in the case of O. Janardhan Reddy Vs. Special Deputy
Collector, L.A. Unit - iv, Lmd, Karimnagar, A.P., reported in (1994) 6
SCC 456. It is further submitted that though the claimant has not produced
any relevant evidence so as to decide the market price of the acquired
lands in the year 2010, the learned Judge has allowed the references and
awarded Rs.157 - Rs.24.25 paise and has ordered to pay Rs.132.75 paise
which is unjust and illegal. It is submitted that the learned Judge has
committed an error in directing the appellant to pay 30% solatium in
addition to compensation as per Section 23(2) of the Act, which is illegal
and unjust. It is also submitted that the learned Judge has committed an
error in directing the appellant to pay 12% additional enhancement from
the date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act or from the
date of award. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted
that the learned Judge has failed to consider the fact of the case and given
direction to pay 9% interest from the first year from the date of taking
possession thereafter 15% interest to the claimant until depositing the
amount as per Section 28 of the Act is unlawful.
4.1 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the
decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Executive
Engineer, Deputy Chief Executive Engineer Vs. Rabari Malabhai
Kesharbhai, reported in 2024 JX (Guj) 439 and in the case of Deputy
Chief Executive Engineer Vs. Lilaji Ranchhodji Thakore reported in
2024 JX (Guj) 438.
4.2 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset, has
submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error of law and facts
in awarding an amount of Rs.157/- per square meter towards compensation
based upon the document at Exhibit 21 and the award passed in similar
Village: Bayad. Relying upon the decision in the case of Sujlam Suflam
Canal Project, it is submitted that the Reference Court has completely
ignored the said aspect and not considered in its true and proper spirit. It is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the fact that
the subject parcel of land in the nature of agriculture land and while
determining the market value, the Reference Court has not properly
appreciated the ratio laid down by this Court, as Exhibit 21 which is
referred and relied upon by the respondents, was of non-agricultural lands,
whereas, the lands in question are agricultural lands and, therefore, after
considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
Trishala Jain and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2011)
6 SCC 47 and the decision of this Court, the Reference Court has not
properly appreciated the fact while passing the impugned judgment and
award in favour of the claimant. Learned counsel appearing for the
appellant has submitted that the present appeal deserves to be allowed and
the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Judge deserves
to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent-claimant has submitted
that the Reference Court has not committed any error of facts and law in
allowing the reference cases and awarding the compensation. It is
submitted that the lands situated at Ubari have been acquired for Patan to
Bhiladi New Broad -Gauge Railway line and Notification under Section 4 of
the Act published on 31.03.2010. It is submitted that the claimant has relied
on the District Valuation Committee Report at Exhibit-21 wherein the price
has been decided at the request of railway for allotment of 19,308 square
meters land of Village Paladi. It is submitted that the Collector wrote a
letter at Exhibit 21 with regard to payment for allotment of the land
pursuant to the valuation wherein over and above the price fixed, an
additional amount was levied for conversion for Non-Agricultural purpose. It
is also submitted that an application for allotment of land was made by the
railway on 17.03.2009, which has been admitted by appellant in their cross
examination and appellant has not produced any documentary evidence
except Notifications under the Act and no evidence of valuation of the land
of other village were produced before the Reference Court and since no
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
evidence of comparable instances has been produced by the appellant, the
decisions relied by the appellant of other villages cannot be helpful to the
appellant as there was no evidence about the comparability and even
otherwise when evidence of same village is available on record, valuation of
other villages can not be taken into consideration. Learned counsel
appearing for respondents-claimant has referred and relied upon the
decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Amaji Thakore,
reported in 2010 (3) GLH 447 and submitted that in the said decision, this
Court has held that valuation done by valuation committee for allotment of
land to any organization should be considered for evaluation of market
value of very village. It is submitted that Notification under Section 4 of the
Act is dated 30.03.2010 and valuation has been decided on 29.06.2015 and,
therefore, there is difference of around 5 years and since valuation of the
valuation committee is done by the Government Officer, there is no
question of manipulation of price. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Major Jitendra
Kumar and others reported in (1982) 2 SCC 382, it is submitted that in
the said decision, the 3 years subsequent sale deed have been considered
under the Act. Relying upon the another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ram Kishan (since deceased) through His Lrs Etc.
Vs. State of Haryana and ors in Civil Appeal No.4772-4773 of 2025
delivered on 03.04.2025, it is submitted that the Court reversed the
deduction at the rate of 7.5%, which is permissible and, therefore,
deduction made by the Reference Court for 5 years at the rate of 7.5% per
year is justified; 30% deduction for type of land. It is submitted that the
Reference Court has erred in deducting 30% from the price decided at
Exhibit 15 by holding that the lands evaluated in Exhibit 15 are of non-
agricultural lands which is not correct in view of letter written by Collector
at Exhibit 21 wherein over and above the price fixed, an additional amount
was levied for conversion for Non-agricultural purpose and, therefore, it is
proved that the amount as decided at exhibit 21 was for agricultural lands
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
only. It is further submitted that smaller area fetches more price then larger
are, on that principal, the Reference Court has deducted 10% and in the
District Valuation Committee Report (Exhibit-15) the price has been decided
at the request of railway for allotment of 19,308 square meters land
whereas the land of each claimant is small in size. Relying upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thakarsibhai
Devjibhai and others Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another
reported in (2001) 9 SCC 584, it has been submitted that in the said
decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that each claimant's land has
to compare with the exemplar and not by clubbing all acquired land and
therefore acquired land of each claimant much smaller than Exhibit 21
evaluation and, therefore, the Reference Court has erred in deducting 10%
on the ground of smallness. It is submitted that the interest of justice will be
served if 20% deduction may be made instead of 40%. It is submitted that
the appeal being meritless deserve to be dismissed.
5.1 Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-claimant has
submitted that the deduction with regard to the area of lands or the nature
of the lands is not made any difference in the decision of the Court while
determining the value as there was no other relevant piece of material
produced before the Court, the Court ought not to have considered the
submissions of the otherside, while allowing the appeal. It is submitted that
since some of the agriculturists having lands on prime location adjacent to
the railway line and having hospitals and other facilities in the villages, the
Market Valuation Committee Report has assessed the market value of the
subject parcel of lands is on lower side and the same requires to be
enhanced and, therefore, he has urged to enhance the amount of
compensation to the tune of Rs.350/- per square meter instead of Rs.157/-
per square meters as awarded. It is submitted that the deduction for the
purpose of considering the nature of the lands, the Reference Court
deducted 30% towards development charges is erroneous and it cannot be
deducted from the said parcel of lands. It is submitted that 10% deduction
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
towards the area of the land i.e. smallness of area is also contrary to the
settled principles of law and the deduction difference towards the time gap
between the Notification and the sale instances. It is also submitted that the
Market Value Committee has considered sale transaction took place in the
year 2015 and the Notification is of 2010 and, therefore, the deduction
under the head of 7.5% is also illegal and improper and hence, all the
claimant is entitled for Rs.350/- per square meters towards compensation
for the subject lands.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.2 has assisted the Court.
7. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case
and the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the
decisions relied upon at the Bar. This Court has perused the judgment and
award passed by the Reference Court and the material placed on record.
8. From perusal of the record, it is an undisputed fact that the land of
the original claimant has been acquired for the public purpose i.e. for the
construction of Patan - Bhildi New Broad Gauge Railway line. The Railway
authorities have undertaken necessary steps to acquire the lands by
following due procedure of law as prescribed under the Act. On perusal of
the record and carefully reading the impugned judgment and award passed
by the Reference Court as well as I have personally examined and verified
the record and on perusal of the records, it is evident that the instances,
which were placed for consideration before the Reference Court included
the District Valuation Committee Report at Exhibit 21. The respondents
have produced documentary evidence which is referred in para - 9 of the
judgment and award. The Market Valuation Committee Report is based to
determine the market value of the subject parcel of lands. It is now well
settled that in absence of any other relevant and cogent evidence in terms
of the sale instances or any other award passed in similar group of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
reference, the reliance can be placed upon the Market Valuation Committee
Report. It appears that this Court has dismissed the group of appeals and
the present appeal is out of the same group and, therefore, the same
deserves to be disposed of.
9. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer Vs.
Rajput Devjibhai Jethabhai reported in 2025 (0) GUJHC 26149 : 2025
(0) JX (Guj) 645 wherein the Division Court has held and observed that
principles governing market value determination were well - settled;
reliance on expert opinions and recent transactions were appropriate. The
evidence indicated that lands were similarly situated with no substantial
disqualification presented by the State to challenge valuation findings.
10. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the
reference came to be decided. I have an occasion to examine the record
and proceedings of the Reference Court in Reference Case No. 75 of 2012
(main case) and other allied appeals, the copy of the aforesaid award of the
Reference Court is forming part of the record. On perusal of the finding
recorded by the Reference Court in Land Reference Acquisition Case No. 75
of 2012 and allied matters indicate that the said Land Reference Acquisition
arose from Land Acquisition Cases. The Notification under Section 4 of the
aforesaid case was issued on 30.03.2010. The said Notification was followed
by Section 6 Notification was published on 21.06.2010. The Special Land
Acquisition Officer, Patan, had passed an award under Section 11 of the Act
on 11.02.2011 and had thereby fixed the market value of land at the rate of
Rs.24.25 per square meters. The affected persons and/or the land owners of
the aforesaid acquired lands of Village: Paladi had approached the
Reference Court, which was registered as Land Acquisition Reference Cases
No.75 of 2012 and allied matters. In the aforesaid proceedings, the affected
persons have heavily relied upon Market Valuation Committee Report at
Exhibit 21, the nature of the lands, fertility of the lands and other relevant
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
material and agitated before the Reference Court. The Reference Court had
noticed the relevant details of issuance of Notification under Section 4 base
as against the price, which was fixed at Rs.24.25 per square meters. The
Reference Court further noticed that there was no difference of the
Notifications issued by the concerned Authority and relying upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, accepted the case of the affected
persons to the extent by giving rise of 10% every year. The Reference Court
further noticed that the lands acquired were falling in the rural area and
there was no major developments in surrounding Talukas during this period.
Accordingly, the Reference Court had determined the increase in market
value of land every year mainly referring and relying upon the subsequent
Rs.431/-awarded in the subsequent Notification issued for acquiring the
lands for the same purpose from 09.10.2015. In the present case, all the
subject parcel of lands are in the nature of agricultural lands and, therefore,
considering the market value in the case, 30% deduction requires to be
considered as all the parcel of lands are agricultural lands. Considering the
market value as suggested by the District Market Valuation Committee at
Rs.431/- per square meters from which 30% development charges is
required to be deducted and after deduction of 30% towards area of the
land, it should be considered as 10% as the District Market Valuation
Committee has considered the subsequent Notification dated 09.10.2015
and after five years and six months, if the appropriate deduction of 7.5% is
deducted, then the following calculation is to be made:-
Less Rs.431.00 Price as per Exhibit 21 per square meter
Rs.130.00 According to the type of land (30% of Rs.431-)
--------------
Rs.301.00
Less Rs.043.00 Are of land (10% of Rs.431/-)
--------------
Rs.258.00
Less Rs.101.00 Price reduction as per 5 years - 3 months
-------------- (Rs.258/- at 7.5% per annum)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
The said amount is considered to be the market
Rs.157.00 value(per square meter) of the acquired land
--------------
Less Rs. 24.25 Amount as per the award at Exhibit 33 (per
square meter)
Rs.132.75 The claimants are entitled to receive more than
the said amount as compensation (per square
meter)
11. In view of the above, there is clearly five years gap and, therefore,
the deduction at the rate of 7.5% the amount comes to Rs.101/- per square
meters for five years. Thus, the total market value of the acquired lands is
finally determined is Rs.157/- per square meters. Considering the facts, the
Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a sum of Rs.24.25 per square
meters and affected persons of the Land Acquisition Cases are declared
entitled to the market value at the rate of 132.75 per square meters
followed by consequential benefits of solatium and interest.
12. In the present appeal, as per the say of learned counsel appearing for
the appellant, many land owners have accepted the amount of
compensation awarded by the Reference Court. It is also contended by
learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the trial Court, while
accepting the Market Valuation Committee Report, has committed serious
error of the facts and law by disbelieving the award passed in Sujalam
Sufalam Canal Project wherein the government land acquired in Village:
Paladi and on the aforesaid base, the price as determined by the Reference
Court has been followed in the Reference Case and allied matters in the
present appeal, which is illegal and erroneous. In view of the above I am of
the opinion that in absence of any sale instances brought on record or any
other cogent and relevant material produced by both the sides in the
present acquisition proceedings, the Reference Court has rightly referred
and relied upon Exhibit 21 while referring the decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and no error can be found with the approach of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
Reference Court in relying upon the decisions of this Court as well as
Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the determination of the market value of the
lands in respect of the Village: Paladi. It is worthwhile to mention that the
Notification under Section 4 of the Act in all the cases is dated 30.03.2010
and, therefore, the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the Market
Valuation Committee Report at Exhibit 21 and in support of the same, the
Reference Court has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court while assessing the market value of
Village: Paladi at Rs.157/- per square meters out of which the Special Land
Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.24.25 per square meters, which comes
to Rs.132.75 per square meters. Hence, the market value determined by
the Reference Court for Village: Paladi is not required to be interfered with.
13. In the case of Rajput Devjibhai Jethabhai (supra), the Division
Bench of this Court has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi
Ravataji Lumbaji passed in First Appeal No. 669 of 2019 and allied
matters wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held and observed in
para 14 and 15 as under:-
"14. We have considered the ratio laid down and the
principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions. It is found
out that the principles governing determination of market
value of lands acquired are well- settled and at the time of
determination of the compensation, the Honble Supreme
Court issued certain directions as regard the the methods
of valuation to be considered i.e. (1) opinion of experts, (2)
the prices paid within a reasonable time in bonafide
transactions of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of
the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar
advantages and (3) a number of years' purchase of the
actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands
acquired. Therefore valuation made by the Valuation
Committee can be a valid basis for the Reference Court in
deciding the valuation of the land for the purpose of
awarding compensation, subject to any change in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
nature of the land, character etc. If the impugned judgment
and order of the Reference Court is examined in light of the
aforesaid observations and discussions, it appears to us
that there is no error committed by the Reference Court in
relying upon the price fixed for allotment of the land for the
public purpose of Spreading Canal of Sujalam Safalam, but
the Reference Court has committed error in not considering
the aspect that the valuation as was made of the land in
question on 20.05.2004 and the said valuation is to be
considered, keeping in view the principles, as observed
herein above and the Reference Court has also totally lost
sight of in not considering the deduction to be made in the
nature of the land allotted for non-agricultural purpose and
the acquisition of agricultural land in the present case.
15. From the facts of the case, as stated above, it is
found out that it is the case of the original claimants that
the Valuation Committee has fixed the valuation of the
Government land on 20.05.2004, whereas the Notification
under Section 4 of the Act was published on 30.06.2004 i.e.
after the fixation of the valuation of the land by the
Valuation Committee and, hence, they are entitled for
additional compensation, for which, reliance is put upon
the decision of this Court in case of Patel Haribhai Manilal
(supra) as well as in case of Amaji Mohanji Thakore (supra)
and though the aforesaid facts have been pointed out
before the Reference Court, it has not been considered and
40% deduction was made instead of 20%, which the
original claimants are entitled for. We have gone through
the record and proceeding and found out that the
Reference Court has considered the report dated
20.05.2004 of the Valuation Committee. It is found out that
the Reference Court has correctly evaluated the the report
of the Valuation Committee but at the time of considering
the amount, 40% amount is deducted from the said
amount mentioned in the report solely on the count that in
identical matter in case of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam
Ltd. delivered in First Appeal Nos.2832 to 2843 of 2006, the
Division Bench of this Court has deducted 40% amount
from the price fixed by the competent authority. It is found
out from the record that in the said matter, the acquired
land was situated in outskirt of the city area, whereas the
present land, which is acquired by the acquiring body, is
situated within the center of the city and as per the
evidence led by the original claimants, surrounding and
vicinity area of the acquired land is well developed area
and in future, the Government need not have to spend any
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4183/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/09/2025
undefined
amount for the development of the said area, therefore,
basic price value of the said land is on higher side,
therefore, the deduction is required to be made 20%
instead of 40%. We have gone through the record and
proceedings and found out that the land, which was
acquired by the acquiring body, is small plot and situated
within the center of the city, therefore, we are of the
opinion that the original claimants are entitled for 20%
deduction instead of 40% deduction."
14. In view of the aforesaid observation and decisions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as well as this Court, I do not find any error in the award,
which may warrant interference in the present appeal. In view of the above
discussion, I do not find any merits in the appeal. I am of the opinion that
there is no any infirmity or illegality committed by the Reference Court and,
therefore, appeal requires to be dismissed.
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the
appeal is hereby dismissed. Registry is directed to transmit back the record
and proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith. Pending Civil
Applications stand disposed of accordingly. The interim relief, if any,
granted earlier in Civil Applications shall stand vacated forthwith. The Nazir
of the concerned Court is directed to release and disburse the amount lying
in the Fixed Deposit Receipts to be paid to the claimant by verifying his
bank details through RTGS / NEFT.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
V.R. PANCHAL
