Gujarat High Court
Manager, National Thermal Power ... vs Heirs Of Chhatrasang Jesang Gulal, ... on 16 October, 2025
Author: A.Y. Kogje
Bench: A.Y. Kogje
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 120 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 121 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 122 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 123 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 124 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 125 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 126 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 127 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 128 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 129 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 130 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 131 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 132 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 133 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 134 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 135 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 136 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 137 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 138 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 139 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 140 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 141 of 2011
Page 1 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 142 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 142 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 143 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 2 of 2011
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3 of 2011
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 145 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 2 of 2011
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 145 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 146 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 146 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 147 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 148 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 149 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 150 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 151 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 152 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 153 of 2011
With
Page 2 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 154 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 155 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 156 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 2 of 2011
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 156 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 157 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 158 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 159 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 160 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 161 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 162 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 163 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 164 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 165 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 166 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 255 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 256 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 257 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 258 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 259 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 260 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 261 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 2 of 2011
Page 3 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 261 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 262 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 263 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 264 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 267 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 352 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 354 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 355 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 357 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 358 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 359 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 360 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 361 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 363 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 364 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 365 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 366 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 370 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 371 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 372 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 373 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 374 of 2011
With
Page 4 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 405 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 406 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 407 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 408 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 409 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 410 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 411 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 412 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 412 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 413 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 414 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 415 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 416 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 417 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 418 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 419 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 420 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 422 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 423 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 424 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 425 of 2011
Page 5 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 426 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 427 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 428 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 429 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 432 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 433 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 436 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 437 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 439 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 440 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 444 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 448 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 492 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 493 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 495 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 496 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 497 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 498 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 499 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 500 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 501 of 2011
With
Page 6 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 503 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 504 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 505 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 4 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 505 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 506 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 508 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 509 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 509 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 510 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 511 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 512 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 512 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 513 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 514 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR BRINGING HEIRS) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 514 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 2 of 2025
Page 7 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 514 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 998 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 998 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 999 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 999 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1000 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1001 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1002 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ORDERS) NO. 1 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1002 of 2011
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR JOINING PARTY) NO. 1 of 2025
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1002 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1003 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1004 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1005 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1006 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1007 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1008 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1009 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1010 of 2011
With
Page 8 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1011 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1012 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1013 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1014 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1015 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1016 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1017 of 2011
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 603 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2015
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 603 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 604 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 607 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 608 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 609 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 610 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 611 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 612 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 613 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 614 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 615 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 619 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 620 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 621 of 2013
Page 9 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 2 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 621 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 622 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 623 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 624 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 717 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 718 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 719 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1758 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1759 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1760 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1761 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1822 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1823 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1824 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1825 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1826 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1827 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1828 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1829 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1830 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1831 of 2013
With
Page 10 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1832 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1833 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1834 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1835 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1836 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1837 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1838 of 2013
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3391 of 2013
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
MANAGER, NATIONAL THERMAL POWER PROJECT, BHARUCH
Versus
HEIRS OF CHHATRASANG JESANG GULAL, KHUMANSINH JAISING &
ORS.
================================================================
Appearance-FIRST APPEAL NO.120 OF 2011 AND ALLIED APPEALS
MR SUNIL S JOSHI(2925) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR BS PATEL with MR CHIRAG B.PATEL and MR MM SAIYED(1806) for
the Defendant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5
MR SHIVAM DIXIT and MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGPs for the
Defendant(s) No. 2
Appearance-FIRST APPEAL NO.603 OF 2013
MR KM PATEL, SENIOR ADVOCATE assisted by MR PP MAJMUDAR for
the Appellants
MR SHIVAM DIXIT and MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGPs for the
Defendant(s) No. 1
MR SUNIL S JOSHI(2925) for the Appellant(s) No.2
================================================================
Page 11 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. L. ODEDRA
Date : 16/10/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE)
1. The present Judgment would govern the disposal of two sets of group appeals, which are arising out of the same acquisition proceedings. Originally, First Appeals were preferred by the Acquiring Body against the order of the Reference Court. Out of whole Group of Appeals, one set of Group Appeals was remanded back to the Reference Court and after the remand, the Reference Court declared the award and against such declaration of award, the claimants have preferred the Appeals, whereas, one set of Group of First Appeals remain pending before this Court. The group of First Appeals, which remain pending, were filed in the year 2011, whereas another group of appeals against post remand judgment and award were filed in the year 2013. The Court may refer to basic facts with regard to acquisition proceedings, which have remained undisputed.
2. The State Government had declared acquisition proceedings of the land situated in Village: Zanor, Taluka and District-Bharuch for the public purpose of National Thermal Power Corporation Project. Notification under Section 4 was issued on Page 12 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined 16-10-1990 and was published in public place on 23.10.1990. Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 29.11.1990 and was published in public place on 01.12.1990. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed award on 29-12-1992, thereby awarding Rs.450/- per are (4.50 per square meter) for irrigated land and Rs.360/- (3.60 per square meter) per are for non- irrigated land.
3. Being aggrieved by the claim awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, land holders preferred reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch, which was numbered as Land Acquisition Reference No.531 of 1996. As and when, claimants started filing their references, all the references were consolidated with lead reference; Land Acquisition Reference No.531 of 1996 and evidence was also recorded therein. The Reference Court declared Common Judgment and Award on 19-06-2010 and granted additional amount of Rs.121.40 per square meter.
4. In view of the two judgments and awards of the Reference Court, for the sake of clarity, the Court may refer to the judgment and award rendered by the Reference Court in the year 2010 as original award of the Reference Court and the judgment and award declared post-remand judgment and award of the Reference Court as post-remand award.
Page 13 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
-:SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT-ACQUIRING BODY:-
5. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the Reference Court has relied upon various methods to award additional compensation by arriving at market price of the acquired lands of Rs.125/- per sq. mtr. However, such methods are erroneous. It is submitted that the Reference Court had taken into consideration an agreement to sale Exh.32 dated 03.01.1991, wherein consideration was at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. mtr. However, such transaction was only between two brothers whereas the Reference Court post-remand has declined to rely upon the same. It is submitted that the agreement to sale only referred the payment of consideration in cash to the tune of Rs.20/- lakhs. However, in the deposition, there is no such mention by the witness, who was examined in this regard.
5.1 It is submitted that reliance placed upon by the Reference Court on the report of an individual approved valuer is also not reliable. In his deposition, this witness (Ramesh Intwala) has admitted that he has never visited the land before preparing the report and in fact, has given two valuations with regard to same land, one at Rs.70.14 and another at Rs.151.65. It is submitted, by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of The Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. Vs. Sri Siddappa Omanna Tumari & Ors., reported in AIR 1995 SC, 840 that for Page 14 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined accepting report of expert, material on which same is prepared must be produced and proved, which in the present case has not been done and therefore only, the Reference Court in post-remand decision has rightly not accepted the report of the valuer as a reliable evidence.
5.2 It is submitted that an error is committed by the Reference Court in relying upon the report of the District Valuation Committee of Bharuch which is of the year 2004, whereas Section 4 notification was of the year 1990-91 and therefore, on account of the time gap, it would not be prudent to resort to annual deescalation of 10% method as it will not give correct picture with regard to market price.
5.3 It is submitted that the Reference Court in the original award has committed an error in not relying upon previous judgments, particularly award in Land Reference Case No.78 and 79 of 1990, where market price of the land was fixed at Rs.7/- per sq. mtr. It is submitted that though reference is made, the same is not considered.
5.4 It is submitted that the Reference Court has also committed an error in assessing the market price of the land by resorting to annual yield method as there was no documentary proof of the accounts or sale and purchase of the agricultural Page 15 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined produces nor there was any evidence with regard to expenditure incurred towards agricultural activity. Even in case of the evidence of witness Yusuf Musa Ibrahim, who is trustee of the trust owing land and giving it on rent for agricultural activity, no clear cut evidence has come on record to establish yield from the agricultural lands. In fact, various decisions of this Court has laid down the principle that the oral testimony of the claimant to prove income out of agricultural activity cannot be safely relied upon, particularly in absence of proof of sale and purchase of such agricultural products and expenditure incurred for the same. 5.5 It is submitted that in the proceedings post-remand, appellant-NTPC was able to place on record various sale deeds which are of the period proximate to Section 4 notification and therefore, could serve as guideline for making assessment of the market price. It is submitted that in fact, certain sale deeds were pertaining to the very agricultural lands which were part of the acquisition. The Reference Court ought to have relied upon these sale instances. It is argued that the instances from the District Valuation Committee may also not be accepted to decide upon the potential value of the land keeping in mind the long period during which the development, if any, claimed by the claimant has taken place. IN fact, they have failed to place on record of the Reference Court any evidence regarding development which has taken place Page 16 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined to demonstrate the potentiality of the lands in question. In fact, in the deposition of witness Yusuf Musa Ibrahim, there is admission that there is no development of any factory or industry in village Zanor.
5.6 Opposing the contention of learned Senior Advocates for the claimants regarding reliance upon market price arrived at in case of acquisition in village Bharthana, learned Advocate for the appellants submitted that the project concerned was that of Sardar Sarovar for passing of a canal and reliance was placed upon the original award of the Reference Court in the present acquisition, despite the same being subject matter of challenge and pending decision before this Court. It is submitted that in fact, the Reference Court was misdirected by the averments made on behalf of the Sate that the original award of the Reference Court was not subject matter of challenge. Learned Advocate for the appellant has strongly objected to place reliance on decision of Bharthana village as according to him, judgment of the Division Bench of this Court was based on fraud practices by the claimants therein. 5.7 Learned Advocate for the appellant has also objected to the additional evidence in Civil Application No.11759 of 2015 on the ground that the District Valuation Committee had recorded its minutes of the meeting on 26.09.2014, wherein they had assessed the market price prevailing in the year 1993, which was assessed Page 17 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined at Rs.400/- per sq. mtr. The practice of assessing market price of the year 1993 in the year 2014 itself is highly unreliable. In fact, objection is raised for treating the same as additional evidence as the same has come on record when the appellant-NTPC being given an opportunity to contest the same.
5.8 Learned Advocate for the appellant has also objected to the calculations of agricultural yield given by the claimants by submitting that such calculations were not available before the Reference Court and the Reference Court had no occasion to consider such calculations. It is submitted that the contention raised by the claimants that in the batch of appeals covered under the original award, NTPC has not filed any reply to the reference application and therefore, contention of the claimants have remained uncontroverted, it is submitted that as the References were conducted jointly, there is reference to the written statement at Exh.8 in Land Reference Case No.530 to 551 of 1996 and the witness on behalf of the NTPC was examined at Exh.78 and therefore, it cannot be said that all the contentions raised by the claimants are to be treated as uncontroverted. 5.9 Learned Advocate has lastly submitted that there are certain anomalies which have crept into the impugned judgment and award in view of inaccuracies in mentioning the area of the lands which will affect the ultimate compensation required to be Page 18 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined paid.
-:SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANTS:-
6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.K.M.Patel appearing with learned Advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar for the claimants submitted that the market price of Rs.125/- per sq. mtr. decided by the Reference Court prior to remand is justified market price and therefore, an error is committed by the Reference Court in passing the award post-remand reducing the market price to almost half. 6.1 It is submitted that in the district valuation committee meeting (Exh. 43)-, which is a body consisting of experts and government authorities, in its report at item 11 the market value of land in question is Rs. 400-per sq. meters in the year 2004. It is submitted that the evidence supporting the aforesaid value is at Page no. 151 Exh. 37 (Deposition of Witness Ashokbhai Kaptan). It is submitted that the said land was not a cultivable land and when the land of kharaba land is certain amount then the normal price of the cultivable land would be at least double the price of the kharaba land. It is submitted that this Hon'ble Court has in the case of Defence Estate Officer vs. Lilaben W/o. Govindbhai Prabhudas reported in 1998 2 GLR 1100 has held that fertile agricultural land cannot be valued at the same rate as waste land and has also held that the price of fertile land is at least twice the Page 19 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined price of waste land. It is submitted that thus the price of Rs. 400 would come to Rs.800. It is submitted the said land is situated 500 meters to the acquired land in question and the land in question is fertile land, which is also deposited by the witness Ashokbhai Kaptan in his deposition.
6.2 It is submitted that the land in question is adjacent to the aforesaid Kharaba land and thus the price of the land in question should be double than the Kharaba/waste land. For the issue of time gap between the price assessed and year of acquisition, the appellant relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan (Since Deceased) through his Lrs Etc. Vs. State of Haryana & Anr. reported in 2025 SCC Online 715, for the principles of De-escalation. 6.3 It is submitted that a Civil Application in the captioned matter is filed for additional evidence, which is the document showing the price fixation for land acquisition for ONGC pipeline project at the same Village Zanor, where the valuation of land is fixed at Rs.400 per sq. meters.
6.4 It is submitted that from the Agreement to Sale, Exh. 66 and deposition of Jashwantbhai Punilal, Exh. 44, wherein also it comes on record the price in said Agreement to Sale as Rs. 100/- per square meters.
Page 20 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined 6.5 It is stated and submitted that Based on this award of reference court of Rs.125 per square meters, at least in three other proceedings, where the Government acquired the land for Narmada Canal, this award is followed, and the price is redetermined considering the factors of development. And the same has come up to this Court in First Appeal No.1682 to 1690 of 2012, there the notification was issued on 9/02/95, Village Bharthana, adjoining land to land in question. In Paragraph 5 of the said judgment, comparison is shown with Village Zanor. It is submitted that the judgement passed by this Hon'ble Court in First Appeal No. 3394 of 2012, same Rs.125 base is considered, the village is Bharthana, adjacent to the land in question, (no appeals are filed against this judgments). It is submitted that also in Reference Case No. 832 of 1998 with regard to acquisition of land in Village Zanor (Same village where land in question is situated), wherein Section 4 notification came to be issued on 28.02.1995, Award came to be passed of Rs. 6.54 per square meter and thereafter the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation of Rs. 98 and thus total Rs. 105 is awarded per square meter.
6.6 It is submitted that near the same Vicinity the National Highway Authority has acquired land at Village Jadeshwar, Dist. Bharuch for Toll Plaza wherein also price fixed is Rs. 115 per Page 21 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined square meter.
6.7 It is submitted that Rs.125 per square meter is originally correctly decided, and in any case, there are subsequent orders of this Hon'ble Court and reference court which is the basis for deciding the market price and therefore merely because the acquiring body is in appeal the claimant's compensation cannot be reduced. It is submitted that the Government accepts that the said price as basis and pays the compensation in surrounding villages and it has attended finality therefore the claimants in the present case cannot be treated differently.
6.8 It is submitted that the Government District Valuation Committee proceeding was produced on the aforesaid reference below Exh. 30 and relying upon the same the quantum of compensation should have been fixed.
6.9 It is submitted that even the Agreement to Sale entered into only after 47 days from the date of Section 4 notification came to be produced on record of the case at Exh. 44 and considering the same on 04.01.1991 the market value would come to Rs. 100 per sq. meter, and along with the potential value it would come to three times of the said value i.e. Rs. 300 per sq. meters.
7. Learned Advocate Mr.B.S.Patel appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Chirag Patel for another set of claimants submitted Page 22 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined that that the present appellant has not filed the written statement to the Land References and therefore the averments, contentions and claims of the claimants had remained uncontroverted. 7.1 It is submitted that the land had been acquired by the State of Gujarat at the instance of the appellant. The State of Gujarat has not challenged the order of the trial Court and on the contrary the State of Gujarat has paid the amount in case of other villages including Village Bharthana (Village adjacent to Zanor) in which the award was passed on the basis of the award impugned. 7.2 It is submitted that the lands have been acquired with standing crops and the land has been classified as land of "A" Category and the claimants have been able to prove the Yield of the land by examining witnesses which is also not challenged by the present appellant. There is a report of the Agriculture Officer regarding yield as Per Hectare. It has been described as Ton and 1 Ton= 1000 Kgs. In the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of State of Haryana Vs. Gurcharan Singh, reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court 106 in para-3 it is held that in agriculture land multiplier of 12 years is to be given, the average of which comes to Rs. 146.34.
7.3 It is submitted that an application was given under provisions of Or. 41 R.27 for production of documents. In the year Page 23 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined 2014, Valuation committee has assessed the value of agricultural land at Rs. 400/- per Sq Mtr for the Year 1993. The report of Valuation Committee was not available and in awarding just compensation the Hon'ble Court can consider the same. Just to justify the claim even though 50% expense had not incurred there were 3 crops in a year as per the deposition of Agriculture Officer and same is multiplied it comes to average of Rs. 146.34/- In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case of R.B.Kapoor Vs. Manek N Dastoor, reported in AIR 1955 DELHI 257.
7.4 It is submitted that the compensation must be just and claimant has to be put in same position. Considering potential income of year 2004 and 2014, income is required to be considered. Even the claimant has been given a meager amount in the year 1993, while more amount has been paid after year 2010. In view of the same, without considering de-escalation the said figures are to be considered as per potential value. The valuation is made subsequently. The claimants are not claiming the exact amount but the same is required to be considered for potential value.
8. Having heard learned Advocates for the parties and having perused documents on record, it appears that this set of appeals would consist of the appeals which are filed, both by the Page 24 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined claimants as well as by the acquiring body, viz. NTPC. The first set of appeals which is against the original award by the Reference Court fixing the land price at Rs.125/- per sq. mtr., out of which some of the appeals came to be heard and decided by this Court, remanding case back to the Reference Court to decide afresh. It is pertinent to observe that when the Reference Court had passed the impugned judgment and order dated 19.05.2010, there was no evidence on behalf of the acquiring body-NTPC. The respondent- NTPC had not placed any evidence on record when the Special Land Acquisition Officer had declared the award and even the Reference Court in its impugned award dated 19.05.2010 has observed in para-47 that opportunities were provided to the acquiring body-NTPC and had passed a specific order for producing evidence in its support, still could not bring on record any evidence to support its contentions. Therefore, in judgment and order dated 19.05.2010, evidence which was available to the Court, was that of the claimants, whereas documentary evidence on behalf of the acquiring body-NTPC, was only Exhs.54 and 55, which were judgment in Land Acquisition References and oral evidence of Superintendent employee of NTPC.
9. The acquisition proceeding has seen matter travelling back and forth and therefore only, the acquisition which is of the year 1991 is yet to be finalized. Village Zanor has seen Page 25 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined development in view of such a huge project coming upon the lands acquired, where township for the project is also set up. What direct benefit the land loosers have received except for compensation is still a big question. The Court is unable to find that the family which lost its land for the project was given any alternate recurring source of income as after they loose their agricultural lands, the only source of income was obstructed. It is with this background, the case will have to be decided.
10. It appears that only after the order of remand passed by this Court in a set of appeals heard by this Court that the matter was remanded to the Reference Court and upon remand, several evidences were placed on record on behalf of the acquiring body- NTPC, which thereafter were discussed in the judgment of the Reference Court post-remand dated 30.11.2012. This judgment and award of the Reference Court post-remand, which decided the price of the land at Rs.62.50 per sq. mtr. Is also subject matter of appeals filed in the year 2013.
11. A dichotomous situation has therefore arisen where in the first set of appeals against judgment and award dated 19.05.2010 by the Reference Court, where till date, the only evidence available on record is that of the claimants and there was no additional evidence and post-remand order dated 30.11.2012, declaring market price at Rs.60.50 per sq. mtr. contained Page 26 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined evidences produced by NTPC in its support. Therefore, in case of first set of appeals, there is still no evidence, which otherwise is there on record in subsequent set of appeals against award of the Reference Court post-remand. It is this dichotomous situation which the Court will have to address and therefore, deems it appropriate to independently assess the evidence which is available on record in the first of appeals as the said evidence would also be part of the second set of appeals post-remand.
12. It is undisputed fact that the lands under acquisition of village Zanor, Tal. & Dist. Bharuch are agricultural lands, which are situated at a very proximate distance of river Narmada approximately within 2 kms. and are therefore, highly fertile and productive lands, which is having high agricultural activities throughout Taluka and District through which river Narmada is passing.
EVIDENCE ON RECORD FROM FIRST APPEAL NO.121 OF 2011 AND GROUP MATTERS ARISING OUT OF LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.531 OF 1996 AND ALLIED REFERENCES:-
13. Exh.13 is the evidence of one of the claimants, viz. Dalpatbhai Parmar, who has supported his claim and has also deposed regarding location of the lands under acquisition. In para- 10, he has deposed that the lands under acquisition are adjacent to the approach road connecting village Zanor to the National Page 27 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Highway No.8; that the approach road was already in existence; that Railway Station of Nabipur is around 2 kms.; that city of Bharuch as well as GNFC are around 15 kms. in the south; that the population of village Zanor was 5000 with amenities of primary school, girls school, high school, primary health centre and water supply scheme sponsored by GNFC is very much in existence and that pipeline of ONGC for supply of sweet water to its project at village Dahej-Jandhar was also passing through this village. 13.1 With regard to fertility and agricultural produces, in para-12, he has deposed that in village Zanor, Bharuch District Panchayat has already awarded two irrigation schemes, which are in existence and sweet water for irrigation is provided to the villagers even for agricultural purpose; that the lands of village Zanor are located on the northern banks of river Narmada; that canal is also passing through the lands of village Zanor and that lands of village Zanor have been put in category "A" provided under the Gujarat Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, which is indicator of the lands being highly fertile.
13.2 Over and above, this witness has also deposed regarding crops which are taken from agricultural lands which are cash crops like Banana, sugarcane, tuver and other vegetables; that other crops which are being taken are lady-finger, white papdi, sugarcane and cotton. According to this witness, for the crops of Page 28 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Banana and sugarcane, the produce is approximately Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre, whereas from the yield of vegetables like lady-finger, papdi and cotton, the produce is to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and above per acre. This witness has further deposed that when the possession of the land was taken, standing crop was required to be compensated, for which necessary procedure for examining experts, valuers from APMC would be essential.
14. Witness No.2 on behalf of the claimant is Mahendra Nanavati, who is employed with APMC and in due course of his working he has to regulate prices of agricultural produces. This witness has deposed about the method by which they arrived at average price of agricultural produce and the list of agricultural produces which is produced at Exh.35 under the signature of the Secretary. This price list is indicator of the prices of the category of vegetables between the year 1991 to 1992 and the prices as per the produces are running between Rs.297/- for tomato, Rs.312/- for bingles, Rs.506/- for lady-fingers, Rs.604/- for chilly, Rs.478/- for cholli, Rs.565/- for gavar, Rs.1091/- for green tuver, Rs.982/- for dry tuver and Rs.890/- for high breed cotton.
15. Another witness from APMC was Sakurbhai Shamjibhai Gamit, who was examined at Exh.39. He has deposed at great length mainly about the modernization of agricultural practices in village Zanor. He has also deposed about the nature of crop which Page 29 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined was being cultivated. According to this witness, agriculturists of village Zanor have resorted to modern techniques of farming and are able to take 2 to 3 seasons every year. This witness has also deposed that majority crop is of sugarcane and after season for sugarcane is over, next round is for danger, vegetables and high breed cotton. The vegetables would include papdi, valor, ghiloda, parvar, bingles and tuver. According to this witness, during one crop season of vegetable, agriculturists are able to remove produces for atleast on 3 occasions in one season, meaning thereby the vegetable plant which is once lifted that plant continues for around 3 months and during these 3 months, on 3 occasions, vegetables are removed and sold in market.
15.1 Though this witness has been extensively cross- examined, however with regard to deposition made on the issue of fertility and taking 2 or 3 crops in a year, cannot be said to be challenged in any manner.
16. Exh.44 is another claimant, viz. Vajesinh Chhitabhai Patel, who in his deposition has deposed with regard to location of the acquired lands. This witness has tried to draw parity between Nikora village where 2 acquisition proceedings have taken place and the acquired lands are hardly one and half km from the lands under present acquisition. This witness has produced judgment of the District Court, Bharuch in the reference acquisition made in Page 30 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined connection with Nikora village. In cross-examination, this witness is asked questions with regard to distance between the two villages, which he has stated to be of 5 kms. and that the acquisition of lands of village Nikora was for the purpose of water canal. The Court is of the view that though the distance between the two villages may be that of 5 kms., but the lands falling within the revenue limits of these villages would be at a shorter distance from each other. The award of the Reference Court in case of village Nikora is at Exh.83, wherein Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bharuch has assessed the market price of the acquired lands at Rs.46/- per sq. mtr. However, the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is referred to be of 1995-96, but there is no reference to the date of notification under Section 4 in the award of the Reference Court.
17. Exh.53 is an application for producing evidence on record, which is certified copy of the proceedings of the District Valuation Committee meeting held on 16.06.2003, wherein item No.1 pertains to 3035 sq mtr. of land, which is non-agricultural land. The committee, after considering the sale deeds which had taken place in the year 2000, where the sale deed was at the tune of Rs.155/- per sq. mtr. and considering the time gap of 3 years, the District Valuation Committee had assessed the land price at Rs.185/- per sq. mtr. for village Zanor.
Page 31 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
18. Exh.72 is the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Bharuch in LAR Case No.712 of 1996 and allied references, which are pertaining to the acquisition, where Section 4 notification was of 20.09.1992 and Section 6 publication of 08.03.1993. By this judgment, the Reference Court has assessed the land price at Rs.32.50 per sq. mtr. This award was declared on 31.08.2007.
18.1 In the opinion of the Court, the Court cannot draw any parity with this judgment and Exh.72 as there is no description of the village where acquisition has taken place, the purpose of acquisition and the distance between the lands which were acquired in the aforesaid Reference Court award, though only reference is its proximity to Nabipur Police Station. The Court is unable to draw direct nexus with this insofar as the present acquisition is concerned.
19. Exh.78 is the deposition of the witness on behalf of NTPC. This witness was working as Senior Superintendent, O & M Department of NTPC. According to this witness, there was no facility for agricultural activity. The only resource of the farmers was mainly to rely upon rain waters for cultivation and the farmers were able to take only 1 crop. According to this witness, the area was undeveloped where project of NTPC was to be set up and that Page 32 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined the NTPC has spent huge amount for land development. He has referred to the development of Township with most modern facilities like bank, post office, senior secondary school with CBSC affiliation, medical centre, recreation club, restaurant, etc. According to this witness, there was no telephone connection or public telephone booth. Even the State transport buses were plying rarely and the distance between the nearest town of Bharuch was 22 kms. and the village was around 9 to 10 kms. from Bombay-Ahmedabad national highway. According to this witness, price of Rs.2.26 decided by the Special Land Acquisition Officer was proper as the claimants themselves had not produced any reliable evidence. This witness has thereafter gone on to depose the amount spent by the NTPC. In para-11, he has given break-up of such expenditure incurred, which goes to Rs.41,53,07,187/-. This witness was cross-examined. However, he has pleaded ignorance about the dates on which Section 4 and Section 6 notifications were published. He was also unaware about the nature of evidences which were before the Special Land Acquisition Officer. He has also pleaded ignorance with regard to survey numbers of the lands which had fallen under acquisition and has also not personally seen the lands acquired for the purpose of laying down of ONGC pipelines.
20. In the opinion of the Court, out of the break-up of Page 33 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined expenditure given by this witness, it is recorded in para-11 as under:-
(i) Expenses incurred for land development Rs.1,31,53,968.00 (excluding land cost of Rs.1.26 crores)
(ii) Expenses incurred for roads, bridges, Rs.8,02,17,891.00 culverts, helipads
(iii) Expenses incurred for water supply, Rs.31,67,81,909.00 drainage, sewerage system
(iv) Capital expenditure on assets not owned Rs.5,15,53,419.00 by NTPC Total Rs.41,53,07,187.00 20.1 From the aforesaid, it appears that for the expenditure incurred for land development is at Rs.1,31,53,968/-, which is excluding cost of the land, which is at Rs.1.26 crores. This witness has also deposed to discard the parity with the land acquisition proceedings of village Nikora on the ground that village Nikora is situated 10 km away from the land under acquisition.
21. Exh.84 is the judgment of 3 rd Joint Civil Judge, Bharuch in LAR No.78 of 1990 and allied matters, wherein acquisition was for the purpose of small water canal, where notification was reportedly published in the year 1989 and the award was declared on 09.11.1989. The land of the claimants were that of village Zanor. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had passed award of Rs.100/- per sq. mtr. However, the acquisition was of small portion of land admeasuring 7183 sq. mtr. of land of survey No.36 and 6475 sq. mtr. of land of survey No.34. There, value assessed was Page 34 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined at Rs.700/- per are. The award was declared on 17.01.2001.
21.1 In the opinion of the Court, though the acquisition was that of the same village, however, considering the smallness of the land which was acquired and the basis on which the Reference Court had arrived at the value of the land based on its opinion that the claimants would not have received the amount out of private sale looking to location and fertility and the judgment passed by the Court in other references, there does not appear to be any independent assessment of the fertility of the land in the aforesaid judgment and therefore, the Court may not treat the aforesaid judgment to draw parity with the present acquisition proceeding.
22. Exh.98 is also proceeding of District Valuation Committee, which had taken place on 20.09.2004 and in this document, at item No.11, assessment of the land being block No.282 admeasuring 557 sq. mtr. of village Zanor was assessed a Rs.400/- per sq. mtr.
23. In this connection, Exh.100 is the deposition of one Ashok Kaptan, who was beneficiary of the allotment of land block No.282 and from his deposition, it is coming out on record that the market price of lands of village was Rs.400/- per sq. mtr.
24. One more aspect which requires consideration is that the land of block No.282 was Government waste land and Page 35 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined therefore, the District Valuation Committee had assessed market price of Rs.400/- for the land which was situated in village Zanor. This witness was extensively cross-examined. However, with regard to market price on the basis of District Valuation Committee which this witness had paid to the State Government for block No.282 remains confirmed.
25. Though learned Advocate for NTPC has prayed for discarding evidence of the expert, but had placed his report as expert for price of the land, viz. Ramesh Intwala at Exh.99 on the ground that this report is not based on any application of the expertise of said Ramesh Intwala and that in the subsequent award dated 30.11.2012, this witness has been examined by the NTPC and this witness has given opinion which is different than his previous opinion. The Court is of the view that the evidence of witness Ramesh Intwala in LAR No.1814 of 1997 (FA No.603 of 2013), may not be considered by this Court also as this Court would like to proceed on other evidences which are available.
26. Exh.107 is the award of the Reference Court in LAR No.210 of 2004 by the Additional District Judge, Bharuch, which has given compensation by calculating the market price of the land as additional amount of Rs.1780/- per are for irrigated lands and Rs.1470/- per are for non-irrigated lands. This acquisition was for the purpose of Narmada Yojna of village Zanor, where award was Page 36 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined declared on 11.11.2002. This award was pertaining to acquisition of only 2176 sq. mtr. of land spread over three survey numbers of village Zanor.
27. Exh.108 is also an award of acquisition of village Zanor, where market price arrived at by the Additional District Judge, FTC No.2 is Rs.22/- per sq. mtr. This acquisition is of land admeasuring 986 sq. mtr. spread over 12 survey numbers of village Zanor. Considering smallness of the lands which are acquired in this proceeding and the pronouncement based on some previous awards which are referred to in para-16 of the judgment at Exh.107, the Court is not required to draw parity based on these awards, but would like to refer to the evidence independently led in this proceeding.
EVIDENCE ON RECORD FROM FIRST APPEAL NO.603 of 2013 AND GROUP MATTERS ARISING OUT OF LAND ACQUISITION REFERENCE NO.1814 OF 1997 AND ALLIED REFERENCES:-
28. By order below Exh.23 all the land references were consolidated into one and the evidence was recorded in Land Reference Case No.1814 of 1997.
29. Exh.27 is the award of the Reference Court dated 19.06.2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in Land Reference Case No.1812 of 1997 to 1834 of 1997, which is previous Page 37 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined award of the Reference Court prior to remand out of the same acquisition proceedings.
30. Exh.28 is the evidence of one Vitthalbhai Chhitabhai Patel, claimant of Land Reference Case No.1829 of 1997, who in his deposition, has deposed that the land is fully irrigated with canal, which is existing since 1973-74 and the agriculturists are drawing crops of sugarcane, cotton, tuver and other cash crops.
This witness has deposed that the lands are categorized in category "A" under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act and as an agriculturist, he is earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/- per acre and expense, if any, was only to the extent of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.2,000/- per acre. He has claimed compensation at the market value of the land to the tune of Rs.15,000/- per are instead of Rs.450/- per are given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. 30.1 In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that before the Special Land Acquisition Officer, sale deeds were produced and had also produced documents pertaining to agricultural produces. This witness was previously employed as Talati with the State Government and has admitted that prior to NTPC, there was no other industry. This witness has denied the suggestion that the lands under acquisition were undeveloped and uneven, but has admitted that the distance between the nearest town Bharuch was 22 kms and the acquired lands were around 8 to Page 38 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined 10 kms from the national highway. This witness has deposed that the town was well connected by State transport buses.
31. Exh.29 is the evidence of one Ashokbhai Kaptan, who is beneficiary of the allotment of block No.282 near Prathna Mandir in village Zanor admeasuring 13558 sq. mtr. and such land was located in Government waste land and the market price of the land was assessed at rs.400/- per sq. mtr. According to this witness, the market price of the agricultural land would be 3 times the market price of a waste land. Deposition of this witness is already on record at Exh.46 in the previous proceeding of the Reference Court.
32. Similarly, at Exh.30 is the proceeding of District Valuation Committee dated 20.09.2004 which has been given Exh.44 in previous proceeding of the Reference Court, wherein at item No.11, discussion by the committee for the land of village Zanor has been reflected.
33. Exh.32 is an agreement to sale of piece of land of village Zanor, where 8000 sq. mtr. of land was agreed to be sold at Rs.8,00,000/-, meaning thereby the market price of Rs.100/- per sq. mtr.
34. Exh.33 is the evidence of one Jashvantbhai Chunilal, who is purchaser of document Exh.32 and has supported the Page 39 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined document with regard to price at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq. mtr. This witness has been cross-examined extensively, through which it is coming on record that the agreement to sale was pertaining to land of survey No.338 paiki and was affected by Fragmentation Act and because of which sale could not be completed. This witness has admitted that the purchase was from his brother Vinodchandra, who has settled permanently in USA and some portion of land has been developed by executing a "banakhat". Overall reading of evidence of this witness reveals that the agreement to sale had taken place at the price mentioned in the document Exh.32. However, sale could not be completed.
34.1 In the cross-examination of this witness, it is coming on record about the crop which is being taken by him as an agriculturist and the nature of crop being sugarcane and thereafter danger and cotton being taken by this witness. The prices of each of these crops are also mentioned in the deposition of this witness. However, instead of referring to the prices of the crops mentioned by this witness, the Court may refer to more reliable evidence in the form of APMC list of prices which is also on record.
35. Exh.34 is the evidence of Sakurbhai Gamit, whose evidence is recorded at Exh.65 in the previous proceeding. This witness has given report with regard to prices of various crops as he was working in District Panchayat as Agricultural Officer. Page 40 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
36. Similarly, Exh.35 is the evidence of Mahendrabhai Nanavati, who was working as Assistant Manager in APMC. His deposition is also on record at Exh.66 in the previous proceeding and the price list of crops in the year 1991-92 at Exh.36 (Exh.67 in the previous proceeding).
37. Exh.41 is the deposition of Yusuf Musa Ibrahim, who is one of the claimants in Land Reference Case No.1827 of 1997 and whose land admeasuring 16390 sq. mtr. was being acquired. This witness has also deposed that his land is falling in category "A" under the Gujarat Agricultural Land Ceiling Act, which would indicate that the land is of highly fertile nature. This witness has also deposed that after removing expenditure, from 1 acre, he is earning Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-.
38. Exh.57 is the list of documents placed on record on behalf of the respondent, which consists of several sale deeds of the year 1987-88, 1989-90 and 1991, which are the evidences brought on record after remand by the High Court. All these sale deeds are in the form of xerox copies of the registered sale deeds which have taken place between the individuals and essentially placed on record by the acquiring body-NTPC to indicate the prevailing market price of the land.
39. The R & P would indicate that each document is given Page 41 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined exhibit number being Exh.58 to Exh.75 and order is passed by the trial Judge on 14.09.2012 that the documents annexed with the list produced by the opponent are ordered to be exhibited. In the opinion of this Court, xerox copy of a registered document has been placed on record, which does not bear any proof of the document being received from the office of the Registrar with whom such document is registered, except for a handwritten phrase on the back side and the stamp of Sub-registrar, Bharuch that "Sarkari kame khari nakal". This document therefore be not treated as a document which is adduced as an evidence and therefore, contents therein cannot be taken into consideration by this Court. Being xerox copy of the document, the same has to face test of being secondary evidence as per Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the proceeding, no such exercise appears to have been undertaken except for the order which is mentioned in the preceding paras by the Principal Judge. There also does not appear to be anything on record to indicate that the claimants have admitted to these documents and because of which the acquiring body-NTPC will be absolved of undertaking necessary steps for treating these sale deeds as evidence adduced for the consideration of the Court. Therefore, this Court is also not inclined to take into consideration the contents of these documents to support the case of the acquiring body-NTPC for arriving at market price of the lands acquired.
Page 42 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
40. If such documents are to be read as evidence on the ground that the same are the documents registered under the Registration Act as is argued by learned Advocate for NTPC, in that case, the registered document is required to be on record and for that reason if the certified copy is to be produced then other evidence by procuring copies to be certified copy is also required to be placed on record. While carrying out this process, obviously, other side would get opportunity of cross-examination of the witness through whom such documents are sought to be brought on record and adduced as evidence, but the process as is observed in the preceding paras in giving exhibit number to these documents fall short of the required procedure for adducing the same as evidence. There is nothing on record to indicate that as to who has placed these documents on record and how such a witness has procured the certified copies if at all these documents these documents are to be as certified copies, which in the opinion of the Court, in the form in which the same are produced, cannot also be treated as certified copies of the registered sale deeds. Hence also, the Court is not inclined to take into consideration the documents which are placed on record under the list vide Exh.57.
41. Exh.81 is the application on behalf of the State to examine Talati-cum-Mantri of village Zanor, which came to be allowed and Dashrathbhai Dhariya was examined as defendant's Page 43 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined witness No.1 at Exh.82. This witness has deposed with regard to location of village Zanor and its distance from Bharuch town and village Nikora. This witness has deposed that Sardar Sarovar canal is passing nearby NTPC and survey No.282 is adjacent to the "gamtal" land (village land). Between survey No.282 and NTPC, there are several other agriculture lands. However, this witness has confirmed that the agricultural crop mainly consists of cotton, tuver and sugarcane. In the cross-examination, he has confirmed that survey No.282 is located in Government waste land, which was not being cultivated by the Government and has also confirmed that survey No.282 is located 500 meters from NTPC land (land under acquisition). Through this witness though the defendant has confirmed location of survey No.282 and location of the same in the Government waste land and if his evidence is seen along with report of the District Valuation Committee then market price of the land of village Zanor which is in the Government waste land, was Rs.400/- per sq. mtr.
42. Exh.88 is the application on behalf of NTPC to examine witness Ramesh Intwala, who was examined as an expert by the claimants in the previous reference proceeding and whose report is also on record of the previous reference proceeding. This application was allowed and Ramesh Intwala was examined as defendant's witness at Exh.89. This witness has deposed with Page 44 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined regard to his educational qualifications and the valuation report dated 10.01.2009 with regard to block no.468 of village Zanor, which was valued at Rs.14,10,383.70 and therefore, as per the valuation report, market price per sq. mtr. was Rs.151.65.
43. The Court may bear in mind that this witness is the witness who was examined by the defendants and has confirmed the market price of the land at Rs.151.65 in the year 2009 report. Though the purpose of NTPC to examine this witness was to discredit him and to counter him upon his evidence which he had given in the previous reference proceedings as a valuer and the submission of learned Advocate with regard to this witness was also for not relying upon evidence of this witness, this Court has observed what is recorded by the Principal Senior Civil Judge in its order dated 28.09.2012 seeking permission to be cross-examined by defendant No.1, i.e. State and this witness was permitted to be cross-examined by learned Advocate on behalf of the NTPC, meaning thereby examination-in-chief is also by the NTPC and the cross-examination was also sought by NTPC. In that view of the matter, the Court deems it fit to discard evidence of this witness altogether.
44. Exh.92 is the list produced by respondent No.2 to submit certified copy of the report of District Valuation Committee, which met in the year 2003 and Exh.93 is the report of the District Page 45 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Valuation Committee held on 16.06.2003, wherein at item No.1, market price of the lands of village Zanor is discussed and the Town Planner of Bharuch district had submitted market price at Rs.115/- per sq. mtr. and the committee, after deliberations, has fixed the market price ar Rs.105/- per sq. mtr. in the year 2003.
45. The other documents which are exhibited through production application at Exh.99 are the list of documents under Exh.100 being certified copies of the judgment in LAR No.23 of 1995 and LAR No.45 of 1995, copy of "jantri" of Zanor village of 2011 by the Revenue Department and copy of the judgment in LAR No.78 of 1990 dated 17.04.2001.
46. Exh.103 is the copy of "jantri" of village Zanor placed by NTPC. The survey number under acquisition are between survey Nos.416 to 445 in the previous First Appeal No.121 of 2011 and allied matters and survey numbers are 814 and 440 in the proceeding of First Appeal No.604 of 2013. As per the "jantri", price of survey Nos.416 to 441, 453, 444 and 457 is Rs.77 for non- irrigated lands and Rs.64 for irrigated lands, for survey No.814, it is Rs.69 for non-irrigated lands and Rs.77/- for irrigated lands, for survey No.440, it is Rs.52 for non-irrigated lands and Rs.64 for irrigated lands. Therefore, as per the "jantri" placed by NTPC also, there is price ranging from Rs.52, Rs.77 and Rs.69 for various categories of lands and therefore, at least, finding given by the Page 46 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined Court in its post-remand judgment and award holding market price at Rs.58 as additional compensation to Rs.62.50, will need to be interfered with.
47. The Court, therefore, has two judgments which are under challenge, one deciding the market price of the land at Rs.125.90 per sq. mtr. (Rs.121.40 + Rs.4.50 for irrigated lands) and Rs.125 per sq. mtr (Rs.121.40 + Rs.3.60 for non-irrigated lands) and subsequent judgment out of the same acquisition proceedings deciding the market price at Rs.62.50 per sq. mtr. (Rs.58 + Rs.4.50 for irrigated lands) and Rs.61.60 per sq. mtr. (Rs.58 + Rs.3.60 for non-irrigated lands). The Court will therefore have to harmonize between the two findings given for the market price based on the evidence which is brought on record during the proceedings before each of the Courts. This exercise would be essential as the evidences which are coming on record in Land Reference Case No.531 of 1996 (First Appeal No.121 of 2011 and allied appeals) and Land Reference Case No.1814 of 1997-post remand (First Appeal No.603 of 1997 and allied matters) are similar, except for certain evidence which has come on record on behalf of NTPC subsequently in the proceedings post-remand. Technically, such evidence which has come on record in the post- remand references cannot be treated as evidence in Land Reference Case No.531 of 1996 (First Appeal No.121 of 2011 and Page 47 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined allied appeals). However, the Court has examined, as recorded in the previous paras, the evidence which has come on record in both the proceedings. The Court may also refer to both yield method adopted by the Courts on the basis of evidence of the witness as also the crops which are taken by the claimants from their respective lands. A conservative analysis based on the evidence of APMC through its price list and the evidence of the claimants and crops which are being drawn by them, the Court may put in a tabular form, the earning of the farmers from various agricultural produces:-
Product Production Price in Total Production/Sq. Mtr. In Rupees / Hectre Rupees/ per year Kg.
Valod 8 tons 11.5 92,000 per hectre
Papdi - 46,000 expenses
----------------------
46,000 Net Income
Income/Sq. Mtr.
46,000/10000 = 4.6 x 1.2 multiplier
= Rs. 55.2 per sq. mtr.
55.2 x 3 crops per year = Rs. 165.6
Tuver 10 tons 13.5 1,35,000 per hectre
(Pigeon - 67,500 expenses
Peas) ------------------------
67,500 net income
Income/Sq. Mtr.
67,500/10000 = 6.75 x 12 multiplier
= Rs. 81 per sq. mtr.
81 x 3 crops per year = Rs. 243
Ringni 12 tons 7.20 72,000 per hectre
(Brinjal) - 36,000 expenses
----------------------
Page 48 of 57
Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025
undefined
36,000 net income
Income/Sq. Mtr.
36,000/10000 = 3.6 x 12 multiplier
= Rs. 43.2 per sq mtr.
43.2 x 3 crops per year = Rs. 129.6
Juvar 6 tons 6 60,000 per hectre
and - 30,000 expenses
grass -------------------------
for 30,000 net income
cattle
feed Income/Sq. Mtr.
30,000/10000 = 3 x 12 multiplier
= Rs. 36 per sq. mtr.
36 x 3 crops per year = Rs. 108
Bhindi 8 tons 6.88 68,800 per hectre
(Ladies - 34,400 expenses
Finger) ----------------------
34,400 net income
Income/Sq. Mtr.
34,400/10000 = 3.44 x 12 multiplier
= Rs. 41.28 per sq. mtr.
41.28 x 3 crops per year = Rs. 123.84
Choli 8 tons 6 60,000 per hectre
- 30,000 expenses
---------------------
30,000 net income
Income/Sq. Mtr.
30,000/10000 = 3 x 12 multiplier
= Rs. 36 per sq. mtr.
36 x 3 crops per year = Rs. 108
Average is around Rs. 146.24 per Sq.
Mtr.
(refer Exh.141 and 137)
48. The Court may also refer to the evidence in the form report of the District Valuation Committee which has come on Page 49 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined record in the proceedings of both the Reference Court, i.e. to say in judgment dated 19.05.2010 and in judgment dated 30.11.2012, wherein the market price as per the Valuation Committee is Rs.400/- per sq. mtr of a Government waste land.
49. Exh.44 of LAR No.531 of 1996 (First Appeal No.121 of 2011 and allied appeals) and Exh.30 of LAR No.1814 of 1997 (First Appeal No.603 of 2013 and allied appeals), which is of the year 2004, wherein at item No.11, market price of survey No.282, which was a Government waste land, was fixed at Rs.400/- per sq. mtr. In the other valuation report of 16.06.2003 of village Zanor for 3035 sq. mtr. of land, market price was fixed at Rs.185/- per sq. mtr.
50. Therefore, the price of 2003/2004 is between Rs.185/-
to Rs.400/- of village Zanor, shows the proximity of the acquired lands, which was valued at Rs.4.50 and Rs.3.60 per sq. mtr. by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and were thereafter to fetch prices between Rs.185/- to Rs.400/- per sq. mtr.
51. From the evidence of witnesses Vithalbhai Chitabhai Exh. 38, witness Yushufbhai and Agricultural Officer-Sukhabhai Exh. 57, it clearly comes on record that the land in question is an agricultural and very fertile land and from the said land income of Rs. 40,000 - 50,000/- income can be obtained. The land in question is very fertile land situated near Narmada River. The appellants Page 50 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Udho Dass Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 51 (Paragraph nos. 18, 20 and 21), whereby it is held that the claimants are entitled to the potential value of land and has also held that the sale instances do not reflect the true value and are undervalued.
52. Learned Advocate for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Atma Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Anr, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 568 (Paragraph no. 5), wherein it has been held that for ascertaining the market value of the land, the potentiality of the acquired land should also be taken into consideration.
53. It also appears that witness of the claimants has deposed before the Reference Court in clear words that they are able to obtain income of approximately Rs. 40,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- per acre after expenses, whereas other witness has stated that for production of vegetables, expenses incurred are about Rs 2,000/- to Rs. 3,000/-. This evidence of Yield is not challenged by the present appellant in their cross examination. In this regard, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah Vs. Muddasani Sarojana, reported in (2016) 12 SCC 288.
Page 51 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
54. So far as the judgment relied upon by the respondent- acquiring body in the case of Hasmukhlal Vrajlal Darji Vs. Dy. Collector and Officer on Special Duty & Anr., in First Appeal No. 152 of 2007, is concerned, in the said judgment also, this Court in para-8 has held that the claimants are entitled to the method whichever is more beneficial to the claimants. Thus the contention that there was no data is not correct.
55. The Court is therefore of the view to harmonize the various methods like yield method or sale method in the facts of the present case to arrive at just market price of the acquired lands. 55.1 Appreciating the evidence which is available on the record by the annual yield method or by the market value accrued by the District Valuation Committee or going by comparable awards of the Reference Court, this Court is of the view that the market price of the rate of Rs.62.50 fixed by the post-remand Reference Court award is definitely on the lower side and therefore, the market price fixed by the impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2012 is required to be interfered with. At the same time, the market price of Rs.125/- per sq. mtr. cannot be treated as a final price in view of variety in the evidence which has come on record, more particularly the Reference Court award in lands of adjacent village and the same village. However, the Court is unable to accept the explanation for the reasons assigned Page 52 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined hereinabove. Therefore, the Court deems it fit to consider the market price of village Bharthana accepted by the Government and which is adjacent and proximate to the acquisition in the present case.
56. In this regard, the Court may therefore take into consideration some subsequent developments which are brought on record by way of an application for bringing additional evidence being Civil Application No.11759 of 2015 in First Appeal No.603 of 2013, wherein proceedings of the District Valuation Committee of January 2014 to December 2014 was sought to be brought on record, wherein price of village Zanor was also fixed at Rs.400/- per sq. mtr.
57. Further, the Court may take into consideration the decision of this Court in First Appeal No.1682 of 2012 to First Appeal No.1690 of 2012, which was acquisition in connection with village Bharthana and this court in its judgment dated 23.07.2012, has taken reference to the acquisition of village Zanor (the present acquisition proceeding) of the year 1991 and based on the market price of Rs.125/- per sq. mtr., has fixed the market price of village Bharthana at Rs.105/- per sq. mtr. This market price of village Bharthana based on village Zanor has been accepted by the State Government and compensation to the claimants has also been paid. Page 53 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined
58. In the judgment of this Court dated 23.07.2012 in First Appeal No.1682 of 2012 to First Appeal No.1690 of 2012 also, relying upon the market price of present acquisition proceedings, compensation is granted by assessing the market price at rs.105/- per sq. mtr., which also the Government has accepted and paid.
59. At this stage, it would be pertinent to observe that the State Government has not preferred any appeal against the compensation awarded by fixing the market price at Rs.125/- and it is only the NTPC, at both the stages, is in appeal before this Court.
60. In the opinion of the Court, when for another village adjacent to village Zanor and depending upon market price arrived at for village Zanor, when the Government has accepted the market price for village Bharthana at Rs.105/- per sq. mtr., fixing the market price below such market price would be great injustice to the claimants.
61. As previously recorded, there are two judgments and awards of the Reference Court arising out of the same acquisition proceedings. In First Appeal No.120 of 2011 and allied matters, the judgment and award of the Reference Court is of 19.05.2010, where price arrived at is at Rs.125/- per sq. mtr. However, record of this Reference does not carry documentary evidences, which is placed on record in the Reference proceedings post-remand and Page 54 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined there is nothing on record in the form of application or otherwise to treat the evidence on record of the post-remand proceedings to be treated as evidence in First Appeal No.120 of 2011 and allied matters. The judgment and award post-remand has reduced the market price at Rs.62.50 per sq. mtr. and according to learned Advocate for the appellant-NTPC market price of Rs.62.50 per sq. mtr. is also on higher side and according to him, market price ought to have been decided on the basis of the evidence in the form of sale deed proximate to Section 4 notification, which is on record by way of Exhs.64 to 81 in the batch of appeals against post- remand award of the Reference Court. The Court by separate reasonings has already held that such sale instances could not be taken into consideration as the appellant has failed to establish the same by any independent evidence and therefore, was rightly discarded by the Reference Court and therefore, what is available before this Court is based on the annual analysis of the yield method and the market value available through the report of the District Valuation Committee. Both these, yield method also has two sets of evidences, where one witness has claimed earning out of agricultural activity to the tune of Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- per acre and another witness deposing that the earning per acre was to the tune of Rs.25,000/-
61.1 The evidence which has come on record by way of Page 55 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined report of the District Valuation Committee between Section 4 notification and valuation report, though arguably, time gap between Section 4 notification of valuation report is a substantial one, but in view of the discrepant nature of the evidence appearing on the record of two separate reference proceedings, the Court may have to act in the benefit of the claimants so that a just market value can be arrived at.
62. Based on overall reading of the evidence on record, the Court is of the view that the claimants are entitled to just compensation by fixing the market price of Rs.105/- per sq. mtr.
63. Accordingly, judgments and awards of the Reference Court dated 19.05.2010 and 30.11.2012 are required to be modified only to the extent of the market price of the lands acquired, which is arrived at Rs.105/- per sq. mtr. The remaining parameters decided by the Reference Court shall remain unaltered. 63.1 Before parting, the Court may consider the issue raised by learned Advocate for the appellant about anomaly in calculating compensation due to inaccurate mentioning of the measurements of the lands as per Serial numbers. It goes without saying that the compensation has to be awarded based on the accurate measurements. Therefore, it is directed that the State shall take necessary exercise to remove inaccuracies, if any, in the Page 56 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/120/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 16/10/2025 undefined measurements of area of serial numbers of the lands acquired and calculate the compensation accordingly.
64. All these appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The decree to be modified to bring it in conformity with the present judgment. R & P be sent back to the concerned Reference Court.
65 In view of the order passed in the main appeals, Civil Applications do not survive. Disposed of accordingly.
(A.Y. KOGJE, J) (J. L. ODEDRA, J) SHITOLE Page 57 of 57 Uploaded by SHITOLE MANISH P.(HC00188) on Tue Nov 04 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 07 23:01:19 IST 2025