[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Decd. Naranbhai Ukabhai Ahir Thru Heirs vs State Of Gujarat on 30 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/95/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 95 of 2026
==========================================================
DECD. NARANBHAI UKABHAI AHIR THRU HEIRS & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR NITIN M AMIN(126) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7
MR SANJAY M AMIN(130) for the Appellant(s) No.
1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7
MS URVASI PUROHIT, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 30/04/2026
ORDER
1. The present first appeal is filed under section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act, 2013 read with section 96 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the judgment and award
passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Keshod in Land
Reference Case No. 435 of 2016 dated 24.01.2023 whereby the
learned court has determined the market value at
Rs.17,230.40/- per Are for irrigation land. Challenging the above
order, the claimants have approached this Court for enhancing
the market value.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nitin Amin for the appellant
and learned AGP Ms.Purohit for the respondent- State.
2.1. Learned advocate Mr.Nitin Amin submits that learned court,
while determining the market value of the acquire land, has
relied on the judgment rendered in LAQ No.23/1996 (LRC
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/95/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
No.19/2003) and came to the conclusion that market price is
required to be determined at the rate of Rs.10,249/-. It is
submitted by learned advocate Mr.Amin that in the said case
notification under section 4 was published on 13.09.1996
however, in the present case date of the notification is
27.03.2003. Learned advocate Mr.Nitin Amin submits that
though there is a deference between two notifications of 6 years
6 months and 14 days, the learned Court has give raise of 10%
per year only for 6 years. Learned advocate Mr.Nitin Amin
submits that by not giving effect of 6 years and 14 days the
learned Court has committed error and thereby, the claimant
has got less market value than the entitlement.
2.2. In view of above submissions, learned advocate Mr.Nitin
Amin prays to allow this appeal by enhancing the amount by 5%
more than the amount awarded.
3.. Per contra, learned AGP Ms.Purohit is unable to dispute
the above submission and prayed to pass appropriate order.
4. Considering the submissions made by the learned
advocates for the respective parties it emerges that lands of
village Piplva, Taluka: Maliya-Hatina were acquired vide LAQ
No.05/2003 for small irrigation scheme whereas lands of village
Chandravadi, Taluka: Mendarda was acquired vide LAQ
No.23/1996. It is not in dispute that notification under section 4
of the official gazette was published on 27.03.2003 and Special
Land Acquisition Officer has passed award under section 11 on
27.02.2006 fixing the market value at 1,050/- per Are for
irrigated land. Claiming the inadequate compensation, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/95/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
reference under section 18 came to be filed praying
enhancement of valuation of the land at Rs.10,000/- per Are
along with statutory benefits. Learned court while dismissing the
market value has relied on the decision rendered by the learned
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Junagadh in LRC No. 19/2003
and fixed the market value at Rs.10,249/- per Are for irrigation
land and Rs.7667.80 paise for non-irrigation land. In the said
case, the date of notification under section 4 was 13.09.1996.
The learned court, though there was difference between the two
notification of 6 years 6 months 14 days, has given rise at rate
10% and determined the market value at Rs.17,230.40/- per Are
for 6 years.
5. In the opinion of this Court, to arrive at just and fair
market price of the land acquired, instead of giving rise of 65%,
the learned court has given rise of 60% and that is erroneous. In
that background, the impugned judgment deserves to be
interfered with by giving 65% rise of the market value
considering the difference of 6 years 6 months and 14 days
between two notifications.
5.1. Accordingly, these appeal is allowed. The market value
which was assessed as per LRC No.19 of 2003 of Rs.10,769/-
per Are in which 65% is required to be added which comes to
Rs.6999.85 per Are, out of which 60% (which is already given)
being amount Rs.6461 is to be deducted, then additional
amount comes to Rs.538.45 per Are for remaining 6 months.
Taking round figure, in the opinion of this Court, the additional
amount for remaining 6 months is required to be considered as
Rs.5.40 paise per sq.mtr.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/95/2026 ORDER DATED: 30/04/2026
undefined
6. The impugned judgment is modified to above extent. All
statutory benefits to be considered as per the enhanced amount.
7. As the land was acquired in the year 2003 and more than
23 years have passed, therefore, State is directed to deposit the
above amount within a period of 4 months from the date of this
order.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SATISH
