[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Heirs Of Chaudhary Ghemarbhai ... vs Deputy Collector Land Acquisition And ... on 7 May, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 849 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 850 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 851 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 852 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 853 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 854 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2121 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2133 of 2021
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4236 of 2021
==========================================================
HEIRS OF CHAUDHARY GHEMARBHAI PREMJIBHAI CHAUDHARY
HARIBHAI GHEMARBHAI
Versus
DEPUTY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION &
ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS HEMALI SONI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 07/05/2026
COMMON JUDGMENT
1. The caption first appeals, involving common question of
law and facts, with the consent of learned advocates for both
the parties, the first appeals are decided and disposed of by
this common judgment.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
2. In present First Appeals filed under section 54 of the
Land Acquisition Act (in short "the Act"), challenge is made to
the judgment and award dated 15.5.2009 passed by the
learned Reference Court, Mehsana in LAR Nos.1358 of 2003
to 1380 of 2003 (Main LAR No.1366 of 2003). It is a case
where the land of village Mandali, Tal: Kheralu, Dist: Mehsana
was acquired for the public purpose of Dharoi Canal work,
whereby notification under section 4 of the Act was published
on 3.9.1998 and notification under section 6 of the Act was
published on 9.4.1999. In exercise of jurisdiction under
section 11 of the Act, the Special Land Acquisition Officer
awarded compensation of Rs.3.70/- per sq mtr for irrigated
land and Rs.3/- per sq mtr for non-irrigated land. The
reference was preferred under section 18 of the Act, whereby
the Reference Court, by impugned judgment and award,
granted additional compensation of Rs.18.30/- per sq mtr over
and above the compensation already awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer. Being aggrieved, the claimants
preferred present first appeals.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. AV Prajapati for the
claimants and learned AGP.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati mainly submitted that
the learned Reference Court relied upon the judgment and
award passed in regards to acquisition of land of village
Lunva, in which, the judgment in regards to village Nortal was
relied upon, whereby notification u/s 4 of the Act was
published way back in 2.1.1986 and there was gap of 13 years
in two notifications u/s 4 of the Act. He relied upon the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of General
Manager, ONGC Vs. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and
another, (2008) 14 SCC 745 to contend that it is unsafe to
rely upon judgment of previous acquisition if gap of
notification u/s 4 of the Act is more than five years. He
referred to para 15 thereof and submitted that in view that
circumstances, the learned Reference Court has committed
serious error much less error of understanding the facts and
law.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Prajapati relied upon the
judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court rendered in
First Appeal No.1627 of 2013 and allied matters and
submitted that it was decision on acquisition of village Lunva,
whereby notification u/s 4 and 6 of the Act had been published
on 3.9.1998 and 9.4.1999 respectively. The learned
Reference Court granted compensation of Rs.4.30/- per sq mtr
for irrigated land and Rs.3.40/- per sq mtr for non-irrigated
land. He would further submit that the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in this set of appeals, relied upon the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court rendered in First Appeal
No.2275 of 2011 and allied matters, whereby considering the
acquisition of land of village Khatasana i.e. adjoining village for
the very selfsame project of Dharoi canal, the Coordinate Bench
of this Court decided the compensation of Rs.134.10/- per sq
mtr deducting the amount already granted by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer and the learned Reference Court and it
would come to Rs.115.10 per sq mtr [Rs.134.10 - Rs.4.30 +
Rs.14.70 = Rs.115.10]. He would further submit that the order
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
No.1627 of 2013 and allied matters has been accepted by the
State Government and for that, he placed on record
communication received from the State Government and
therefore, he would submit that the decision arrived in the
aforestated first appeal would govern the issue of present
First Appeals since the notification is almost of same time
period, land acquires is of the same village or adjoining
village.
4.2 In addition to his argument, learned advocate Mr.
Prajapati also submitted compilation, which is taken on
record.
4.3 Upon above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Prajapati
prays to allow the first appeals and to modify the impugned
judgment and award.
5. As against the aforesaid submission, learned AGP
considering the facts and circumstances of the case, requests
to pass necessary orders.
6. Regard being had to the rival submissions of of the
learned advocates for all parties and upon perusal of the
record and the compilation provided at the outset, the primary
issue for consideration is whether the learned Reference
Court committed a serious error in relying upon a previous
judgment and award concerning land acquisition in a
neighboring village i.e. Nortol to grant compensation wherein
the notification was published under Section 4 of the Act
thirteen years back.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rameshbhai
Jivanbhai Patel (supra), unequivocally stated that it is
highly unsafe to rely on a judgment and award as an exemplar
where the Section 4 notification is older than 4-5 years.
Relevant Paragraph 15 reads as under:
"15. Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of
determining the market value by providing
appropriate escalation over the proved market value
of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by
sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no
evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or
acquisitions of comparable lands in the
neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe
where the relied-on-sale transactions/acquisitions
precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years,
that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be
unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What
may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few
years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard
where the gap is larger. For example, for determining
the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting
the annual increase method with reference to a sale
or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls.
This is because, over the course of years, the 'rate' of
annual increase may itself undergo drastic change
apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying
periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in
prices affecting the very standard of increase."
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Narendra and
others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2017 INSC
682 held that it is the duty of the Court to award just and fair
compensation, taking into account the true market value and
other relevant factors. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also relied
upon the judgment in case of Ashok Kumar Vs. State of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 544, wherein in para 5, it has been
held as under:
"5) After hearing the counsel for the parties, we
are of the opinion that the issue has already been
settled by this Court in Ashok Kumar and Another
vs. State of Haryana1 wherein it is held that it is
the duty of the Court to award just and fair
compensation taking into consideration true
market value and other relevant factors,
irrespective of claim made by the land owner and
there is no cap on the maximum rate of
compensation that can be awarded by the court
and the courts are not restricted to awarding only
that amount that has been claimed by the land
owners/applicants in their application before it.
The relevant paras of this judgment is quoted as
under:
"6. Prior to amendment Act 68 of 1984, the amount
of compensation that could be awarded by the
Court was limited to the amount claimed by the
applicant. Section 25 read as under-
Section 25. Rules as to amount of compensation-(1)
When the applicant has made a claim to
compensation, pursuant to any notice given Under
Section 9, the amount awarded to him by the court
shall not exceed the amount so claimed or be less 1
(2016) 4 SCC 544 than the amount awarded by the
Collector Under Section 11.
(2) When the applicant has refused to make such
claim or has omitted without sufficient reason (to
be allowed by the Judge) to make such claim, the
amount awarded by the court shall in no case
exceed the amount awarded by the Collector.
(3) When the applicant has omitted for a sufficient
reason (to be allowed by the Judge) to make such
claim, the amount awarded to him by the court
shall not be less than, and may exceed, the amount
awarded by the Collector.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
The amended Section 25 reads as under:
"Section 25. Amount of compensation awarded
by Court not to be lower than the amount
awarded by the Collector- The amount of
compensation awarded by the Court shall not
be less than the amount awarded by the
Collector under Section 11." The amendment
has come into effect on 24.09.1984.
7. The pre-amended provision put a cap on the
maximum; the compensation by court should
not be beyond the amount claimed. The
amendment in 1984, on the contrary, put a cap
on the minimum; compensation cannot be less
that what was awarded by the Land Acquisition
Collector. The cap on maximum having been
expressly omitted, and the cap that is put is
only on minimum, it is clear that the amount of
compensation that a court can award is no
longer restricted to the amount claimed by the
applicant. It is the duty of the Court to award
just and fair compensation taking into
consideration the true market value and other
relevant factors, irrespective of the claim made
by the owner.
8. xxx xxx xxx
9. In Bhag Singh and Ors. v. Union Territory of
Chandigarh [(1985) 3 SCC 737], this Court held
that there may be situations where the amount
higher than claimed may be awarded to the
claimant. The Court observed-
"3. ... It must be remembered that this was not a
dispute between two private citizens where it
would be quite just and legitimate to confine the
claimant to the claim made by him and not to
award him any higher amount than that claimed
though even in such a case there may be situations
where an amount higher than that claimed can be
awarded to the claimant as for instance where an
amount is claimed as due at the foot of an account.
Here was a claim made by the Appellants against
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
the State Government for compensation for
acquisition of their land and under the law, the
State was bound to pay to the Appellants
compensation on the basis of the market value of
the land acquired and if according to the
judgments of the learned single Judge and the
Division Bench, the market value of the land
acquired was higher than that awarded by the
Land Acquisition Collector or the Additional
District Judge, there is no reason why the
Appellants should have been denied the benefit of
payment of the market value so determined. To
deny this benefit to the Appellants would
tantamount to permitting the State Government to
acquire the land of the Appellants on payment of
less than the true market value. There may be
cases where, as for instance, under' agrarian
reform legislation, the holder of land may,
legitimately, as a matter of social justice with a
view to eliminating concentration of land in the
hands of a few and bringing about its equitable
distribution, be deprived of land which is not being
personally cultivated by him or which is in excess
of the ceiling area with payment of little
compensation or no compensation at all, but where
land is acquired under the Land Acquisition Act,
1894, it would not be fair and just to deprive the
holder of his land without payment of the true
market value when the law, in so many terms,
declares that he shall be paid such market value....
10. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Kanhaiya Lal
[(2000) 7 SCC 756], this Court held that under the
amended provisions of Section 25 of the Act, the
Court can grant a higher compensation than
claimed by the applicant in his pleadings-
11. Further, in Bhimasha v. Special Land
Acquisition Officer and Ors. [(2008) 10 SCC 797], a
three-Judge bench reiterated the principle in Bhag
Singh (supra) and rejected the contention that a
higher compensation than claimed by the owner in
his pleadings cannot be awarded by the Court.....
(Emphasis supplied)"
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
9. The uncontroverted facts reveal that the learned
Reference Court, while deciding compensation for village
Mandali, relied upon the judgment and award passed
regarding land acquisition in village Lunuva. Consequently,
any findings or enhancements arrived at in the judgment for
village Lunuva (subject matter of First Appeal No. 2304 of
2021) would have a "rippling" or "domino effect" upon the
land acquired in village Mandali.
10. It is noted that acquisitions in both villages were made
for different purposes but during almost the same period. A
Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 1627 of
2013 and allied matters, while enhancing compensation to
Rs.134.10/- per sq mtr for village Lunuva, relied upon a
Division Bench judgment of this Court. Paragraph 13 of said
judgment is relevant and reads as under:
"13. In light of the above discussion, it would appear
that while the Land Acquisition Officer had awarded
an amount of Rs. 4.30 for agriculture land and
whereas the learned Reference Court had granted an
increase at Rs.14.70 i.e. the value of the land had
been fixed at Rs. 19 for irrigated agriculture land. On
the other hand while the Hon'ble Division Bench has
not made any specific reference as to whether the
land in question was irrigated or non irrigated,
considering the extent of the enhancement granted
and also having regard to the statement made by
learned Advocate Mr. Patel the land in question in
village Khatasana are treated as agriculture irrigated
land and whereas as per the total market value fixed
by Hon'ble Division Bench i.e. Rs. 149/ per square
mater deducting 10% would come to Rs. 134.10 paise.
Therefore, the market value of the irrigated land
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
situated at village Lunva is fixed at Rs. 134.10 per sq
mtr deducting the amount already granted by the
Land Acquisition Officer and the learned Reference
Court, it would come to Rs. 115.10 [Rs. 134.10 - Rs.
4.30 + Rs.14.70 Rs. 115.10]. Furthermore while it
appears that there was no non- irrigated land being
considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the
comparable instance, yet, taking Rs. 149/- as the
benchmark for the irrigated land and considering the
ratio of 4.30 3.40 as the ratio between the irrigated
and non irrigated land as fixed by the Land
Acquisition Officer, the value of non- irrigated land at
village Lunva would be fixed at Rs. 118.25 per sq mtr.
Furthermore deducting the amount already awarded
by the Land Acquisition Officer and the learned
Reference Court from the said amount, it would come
to Rs. 103.23 paise [Rs. 118.23 Rs. 3.40+Rs. 11.62]."
11. In view of the above, all claimants are entitled to
compensation at the rate of Rs.134.10/- per sq mtr for the
acquired land in both village Lunuva and village Mandali.
Learned AGP could not point out any facts to the contrary.
12. Accordingly I pass following order:-
13.1. All First Appeals are hereby partly allowed.
13.2. The impugned judgment and award are modified to the
extent that the claimants in all reference cases are entitled to
Rs.134.10/- per sq mtr as full and final compensation inclusive
of the amount awarded by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer or the Reference Court. The tabular chart of the
compensation awarded in each First Appeal is reproduced as
under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
First LAR No. Village Amount Additional Amount The
Appeal awarded Compensa determined Appellant
No. by SPLO tion by this s-
under awarded Hon'ble Claimant
Section by the Court s are
11 Reference entitled
Court for
Additiona
l
Compens
ation
849/21 1359/03 Mandal Rs.3.70/- Rs. 18.30/- Rs.134.10/- Rs.112/-
i
851/21 1369/03 Mandal Rs.3.70/- Rs. 18.30/- Rs.134.10/- Rs.112/-
i
852/21 1370/03 Mandal Rs.3.70/- Rs. 18.30/- Rs.134.10/- Rs.112/-
i
853/21 1371/03 Mandal Rs.3.70/- Rs. 18.30/- Rs.134.10/- Rs.112/-
i
854/21 1372/03 Mandal Rs.3.70/- Rs. 18.30/- Rs.134.10/- Rs.112/-
i
4236/2 1379/03 Mandal Rs.3.70/- Rs. 18.30/- Rs.134.10/- Rs.112/-
1 i
2121/2 1373/03 Mandal Rs.3.70/- Rs. 18.30/- Rs.134.10/- Rs.112/-
1 i
2133/2 1374/03 Mandal Rs.3.70/- Rs. 18.30/- Rs.134.10/- Rs.112/-
1 i
850/21 1366/03 Mandal Rs.3.70/- Rs. 18.30/- Rs.134.10/- Rs.112/-
i
13.3. The Respondents are granted twelve (12) weeks' time to
deposit the enhanced compensation, including accrued
interest and all other statutory benefits.
13.4. The learned Reference Court is directed to disburse the
amount of compensation deposited by the respondent
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/849/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/05/2026
undefined
authorities after deducting Court fee to the claimants after
due verification and identification along with interest and
after verifying their right to claim the compensation.
14. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
the concerned Court forthwith.
15. Consequently, CAs, if any, do not survive and stand
disposed of accordingly.
Registry to maintain copy of this order in each matter.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE
