Gujarat High Court
Deputy Collector vs Mohanbhai Nankabhai Baria Since Died ... on 16 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4571/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4571 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
DEPUTY COLLECTOR & ORS.
Versus
MOHANBHAI NANKABHAI BARIA SINCE DIED HIS LEGAL HEIRS & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MS FORUM TRIVEDI, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s)
No. 1,2,3
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1
MR HARDIK B KALMEKH(5169) for the Defendant(s) No.
1.2,1.3.1,1.3.2,1.3.3,1.3.4,1.3.5,1.3.6
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 16/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the
common judgment and award dated 11.05.2007 passed by the
learned Reference Court being learned 2 nd Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Dahod in LAR Nos.64 to 87 of 2006 whereby, the Reference
Court has awarded Rs.35/- 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4571/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
acquired the land situated at Village: Nalu, Taluka: Dhanpur, District:
Dahod for public purpose Adalvada Irrigation Scheme. Notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on
11.03.2004 and Declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition
Act was published on 15.05.2004. The award under Section 11 of the
Land Acquisition Act was passed by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer on 25.02.2005 in LAQ Case No. 7/2003 and awarded the
compensation at Rs.7.50ps per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land and
Rs.9/- 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.35/- per square meter vide its
judgment and award dated 11.05.2007.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
4. Heard Ms. Forum Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader
for the appellants and Mr. Hardik Kalmekh, learned counsel for the
respondents - claimants.
5. It appears that during the pendency of this appeal, another
group of appeals filed by the appellant - State of Gujarat being First
Appeal Nos.2650 of 2010, 2651 of 2010 and 2668 of 2010, which
covers the issue involved in the present appeal, are already dismissed
by this Court vide order dated 23.11.2010 on the ground of petty
claim. Therefore, in view of the order passed by this Court in the
aforesaid First Appeals arising out of the same acquisition and 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4571/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
LiveLaws SC 312. Relevant observations at 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4571/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/09/2025
undefined
appellants before the Reference Court, the same shall be disbursed in
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
