Gujarat High Court
Special Land Acquisition Officer vs Bhimsang Jibhai Dharma on 12 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 726 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
Versus
BHIMSANG JIBHAI DHARMA & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS KRISHNA DESAI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2,3
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Defendant(s) No. 2,5
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2.1,2.2,2.3,2.4,3,4,5.1,5.2,5.3
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 12/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the
common judgment and award dated 31.01.2009 passed by the
learned Reference Court being learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Bharuch in LAR Nos.257 to 266 of 1996 whereby, the Reference Court
has awarded Rs.94.65ps. per square meter for the acquired land 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 land situated at Village: Osara, Taluka & District:
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
Bharuch for public purpose under Narmada Project. Notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 18.06.1992
and Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was
published on 19.06.1993. The award under Section 11 of the Land
Acquisition Act was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on
19.05.1994 in LAQ Case No. 42/1992 and awarded the compensation
at Rs.190/- per Are for non-irrigated land and Rs.285 per sq. mtr. for
irrigated land. 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.94.65ps. per square meter vide its judgment and award dated
31.01.2009.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants.
Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents -
claimants.
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/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025
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
date of receipt of this order. If the amount is deposited by the
appellants before the Reference Court, the same shall be disbursed in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/726/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 12/09/2025
undefined
favour of the claimants after verifying their 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
