[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation ... vs Lrs. Of Late Nai Pirabhai Kalabhai on 13 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 905 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 906 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 907 of 2020
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 305 of 2022
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 258 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 305 of 2022
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 261 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 907 of 2020
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 262 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 905 of 2020
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 263 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 906 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Page 1 of 14
Uploaded by MISHRA AMIT V.(HC00187) on Wed Apr 15 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Apr 18 00:44:35 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
LRS. OF LATE NAI PIRABHAI KALABHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS HEMALI SONI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MAHESH P PATEL(3381) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2
MR N P CHAUDHARY(3980) for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1,1.2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 13/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. Vide the common judgment dated 06.04.2018 passed in
Land Reference Case Nos.55 of 2005 to 58 of 2005 (New Land
Reference Case Nos.25 of 2017 to 28 of 2017) keeping the
Main L.A.R.No.25 of 2017, the Reference Court i.e. Learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tharad at Deesa Court granted
additional compensation at the rate of Rs.278.40 ps per sq mtr
with usual statutory benefits which is questioned by the State
Government in these appeals under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894.
2. On being served, the original claimants filed Cross
Objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 ('the Code', for short).
3.1 The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are to the
effect that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, SIPU Yojana,
at Palanpur, Dist.Banaskantha, acquired the lands of the
claimants for the public purpose. Consequently, in LAQ Case
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
No.186 of 2004, the Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to
grant Rs.6.60 per sq mtr for irrigated land whereby
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
published on 01.07.2004 and Notification under Section 6 was
published on 03.11.2004.
3.2 In the present case, the lands acquired are from Village
Sedla, Tal.Tharad, Dist.Banaskantha for spreading the Sujlam
Suflam Canal. The claimants since dissatisfied by the
acquisition award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was
less, preferred Reference Under Section 18 of the Act.
However, relying upon the District Valuation Committee
report, which were produced vide Exhs.14 and 15, the
Reference Court passed an award deducting certain amount.
The impugned award therefore brings the aforesaid
proceedings.
4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jinesh Kapadia for the
Objectors and learned Assistant Government Pleader
Ms.Hemali Soni for the appellants in the appeals filed by the
State Government.
5. Mr.Kapadia, learned advocate for the objectors, in
support of his submission, referred to the judgment dated
28.04.2025 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of First Appeal No.4879 of 2018 whereby the Division
Bench was pleased to dismiss the appeals preferred by the
State Government confirming the Reference Court's judgment
and allowed the cross objections and granted reduction upto
20%. He would submit that the said judgment passed in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
lands acquired which were adjoining to village Ghela which
were acquired for the very same purpose having published the
Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 29.04.2004.
6. As against the aforesaid submission, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Ms.Hemali Soni would submit that there
is distance of 15 km between Village Ghela and village Shedla,
however, on query being raised by this Court as to whether
there is any other judgment is available for adjacent village
wherein boundaries of both villages are touching with each
other, she would submit that there is no such judgment
available with the State Government.
7. In paras:7 to 11 of the judgment of the Division Bench
dated 28.04.2025 passed in F.A.No.4879 of 2018 and allied
matters observed as under:
"7. The captioned appeals and the cross objections are
against the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2017. It is
not in dispute and has been fairly accepted by the learned
advocates appearing for the respective parties that the
lands are acquired for the public purpose of constructing
Sujalam Sufalam Spreading Canal of various villages
including villages Lakhani and Ghela. It is also not in
dispute that the distacnce between village Lakhani and
village Ghela is approximately 2 kms. In the case of
village Lakhani, the matter travelled upto this Court and
the Division Bench, after considering the submissions
made by the respective parties in Land Acquisition and
Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi Ravataji Lumbaji (supra)
has determined the market value at Rs.456/-after allowing
the necessary deduction. Paragraphs 14 to 18, read thus:
"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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
of market value of lands acquired are well settled and
at the time of determination of the compensation, the
Hon'ble 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 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 Le. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
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
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.
16. We have considered the report of the District
Valuation Committee, village: Lakhani dated
20.05.2004 produced on record at Exhs.40 & 41 Le as
well as the Map of village produced on record. It is
found out from the aforesaid documents that the
price of the land of land bearing Survey No.152 pk.
has been evaluated and fixed at Rs.510/- per sq.mtr.
land bearing Survey Nos. 153 & 211 pk. and the said
lands are situated adjacent to the land owned by the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
original claimants It is also found out from the record
that the lands owned by the original claimants are
situated within well developed area, which would
reduce the expenditure behind the development and,
therefore after acquiring the said land, the
Government need not have to spend money for its
development. Thus considering the above facts of the
case on hand, the original claimants are entitled for
deduction of 20% instead of 40%, which has been
done in the present case.
17. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that we have
also gone through the impugned judgment and award
passed by the learned Reference Court including the
finding given and conclusion arrived at by the learned
Reference Court and found that except deduction of
40% instead of 20%, there is no error committed by
the learned Reference Court, which would require
interference from this Court. Hence, rest of the
impugned judgment and award remain unaltered.
18. Therefore in view of the aforesaid observations
made, First Appeals filed by the State of Gujarat are
hereby dismissed. Whereas Cross Objections filed by
the original claimants are allowed as prayed for.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and award dated
22.09.2017 passed by the learned Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Deesa in Land Acquisition Reference
Nos.26 to 31 of 2005 is hereby modified to the extent
that instead of compensation at Rs.333.50, which is
already awarded by the Reference Court, the original
claimants are entitled to get additional compensation
at Rs.160/- per Sq.Mtr 1.e. total compensation at
Rs.493.50. Rest of the observation and direction
would remain unaltered. Decree to be drawn
accordingly. Record & Proceedings are sent back
forthwith."
8. The above-referred judgment on facts and law, applies
on all fours to the facts of the present case and hence,
there is no reason available for this Court to deviate from
the reasoning indicated in the above-referred judgment
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
inasmuch as, it is not in dispute, and as stated
hereinabove the acquisition is with respect to village
Ghela which is village adjoining to village Lakhani and
therefore, there is no reason available to this Court not to
rely or refer to the judgment of the co-ordinate bench.
Besides, nothing contrary has been pointed out by the
State dislodging the distance or potentiality of the land in
question. The issue of deduction, is also discussed and
considered in detail and therefore, allowing 40%
deduction was not correct. So far as the appreciation is
concerned, considering the difference of merely one
month and eleven days between the date of report of the
valuation committee, i.e. 20.05.2004 and section 4
notification, i.e. 30.06.2004, Мг. Jinesh Kapadia, learned
Advocate has not pressed the claim of appreciation for the
interregnum period. Yet in another decision, the co-
ordinate bench in the case of Special Land Acquisition
Officer vs. Patel Kanjibhai Ganeshbhai (supra) has in
paragraphs 3 and 4 observed thus:
3. In light of the decision rendered by the co-ordinate
bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 669 of 2019 of
which paragraphs no. 14 and 15 are reproduced as
under, the compensation awarded to the claimants
has to be on the basis of the valuation report dated
20.05.2004.
"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 Hon'ble 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
basis for the Reference Court in deciding the
valuation of the land for the purpose of awarding
compensation, subject to any change in the 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
Le. 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
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 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."
4. Thereafter, the above decision was followed in a
subsequent decision of this court in First Appeal No.
671 of 2019. In view of the above, the total
compensation therefore in light of the aforesaid
appeals, the orders of which are relied upon, has to be
Rs.456/- per sq. mtrs for the respective acquired lands
with all statutory benefits and interest after
adjustment of the amounts already received by the
claimants. Such statutory benefit accrued shall be as
per the rate prescribed under Section 28 of the Act. It
is further directed that the enhanced compensation
shall be deposited with the Nazir of concerned Court
within period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of this order and on deposit of such amount, the same
is directed to be disburse and paid to respective
claimants on due verification of their identity by
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
account payee cheque.
9. At this stage the judgment in the case of State of
Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer and Anr.
vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakor(supra) would also be worth
referring to wherein in paragraphs 27 and 28 it has been
held and observed thus:
27.The Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Union
of India. reported in (2009) 15 SCC, 769 on the
contrary at paragraph 44 has observed as under:-
44. One of the recognised methods for
determination of market value is with reference to
the opinion of experts. The estimation of market
value is with reference to the opinion of experts.
The estimation of market value by such statutorily
constituted Expert committee, as expert evidence
can therefore form the basis for determining the
market value in land acquisition cases, as a
relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open
to either party to place evidence to dislodge the
presumption that may flow from such guideline
market value. We, however, hasten to add that the
guideline market value can be a relevant piece of
evidence only if they are assessed by the statutorily
appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with
the prescribed procedure."
28. In the present case, the valuation has been made
by the Valuation Committee for giving opinion to the
District Collector in exercise of the statutory power.
The Valuation Committee is comprising of the expert
hody in the field of valuation, including the District
Collector himself. T.P. Authority, etc. Therefore, there
is no reason why the valuation made by the Valuation
Committee of the Government for lisation of the price
for allotment of the land at the very village by way of
sale instance or price fixed by the Government for
allotment of a land to an organization should not be
taken into consideration."
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
Therefore, if there is evidence available in the form of
report of the valuation committee, and in absence of any
contrary evidence, it cannot be said that the learned
Judge has committed error in relying upon the same.
10. Moreover, the evidence produced by the claimants
were certificates issued by the Talati-cum-Mantri, so also,
the judgments rendered in other land acquisition
reference cases. In addition, Exh.36 certified copy of
valuation report dated 20.05.2004 of the District
Valuation Committee was also placed on record. As
against this, the evidence produced by the Land
Acquisition Officer was merely the photocopy of the
award, map of village Ghela and extract of 7/12 forms.
The fact remains that the evidence produced by the
claimants could not be dislodged.
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the learned Judge has determined just and
reasonable compensation relying upon the report of the
District Valuation Committee dated 20.05.2004; however,
so far as the deduction is concerned, it ought to have
been 20% instead of 40% in view of the judgment in the
case of Land Acquisition Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi
Ravtaji Lumbaji (supra). Therefore, the claimants would
be entitled to claim compensation at Rs.456/- per sq. mts.
(Rs.570-Rs.114 (20% deduction)) together with all the
statutory benefits and interest as per the provisions of
section 28 of the Act of 1894.
The differential amount shall be calculated and
deposited within a period of ten weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. It is also directed that trial
Court shall disburse the remaining amount after due and
proper verification.
8. The aforesaid findings arrived at by the Division Bench
of this Court are regarding village Ghela where the lands
were acquired for the purpose of extending Sujlam Suflam
canal and for the very same purpose, in the present case, the
lands are acquired for village Shedla and Notification under
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
Section 4 of the Act was almost of equal period of time.
9. Ms.Soni, learned Assistant Government Pleader while
arguing fairly accepted that there is distance of 15 km
between the two villages and no other judgment having
having adjacent villages is available.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, the amount of
compensation determined by the Division Bench of this Court
dated 28.04.2025 passed in First Appeal No.4879 of 2018 and
allied matters would apply in the present case and, therefore,
amount of Rs.570/- per sq mtr is accepted as that has been
determined by the Division Bench. In the present case,
Reference Court haas deducted 50% of the amount towards
various factors i.e. smallness, distance etc. and Cross
Objections have been filed against the said ratio.
11. Considering the overall ratio, and more particularly
distance of 15 km between the two villages i.e. Ghela and
Shedla, I accept that 30% should be deducted. Therefore,
claimants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.114/- per sq
mtr [Total awarded amount Rs.570/- - Rs.171 (30% deduction)
= Rs.399/- (minus) Rs.6.60/- Per sq mtr would come to
Rs.392.40 (minus) Rs.278.40 (already granted by the
Reference Court]. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to
additional compensation amount of Rs.114/- per sq mtr, with
all statutory benfits.
12. For the forgoing reasons, the appeals and the Cross
Objections are disposed of and the learned Reference Court is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/905/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 13/04/2026
undefined
directed to release the amount of compensation forthwith in
favour of the claimants, preferably within a period of ten
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after
following due procedure, by deducting the Court Fees. The
appellants, if require, shall pay additional Court Fees. Records
and Proceedings be returned back, if any, to the concerned
Reference Court.
13. Copy of this judgment be tagged in each appeal and the
cross objection.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
MISHRA AMIT V.
