Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Kadavabhai Ukabhai Paghadal on 25 November, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 04/08/2025
Pronounced On : 25/11/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 399 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 371 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 372 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 374 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 375 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 376 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 377 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 378 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 379 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 380 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 381 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 382 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 383 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 384 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 385 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 386 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 387 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 388 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 389 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 390 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 391 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 392 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 394 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 395 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 396 of 2017
Page 1 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 397 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 398 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 373 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 393 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 400 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 403 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 405 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 407 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 408 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 412 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 415 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 416 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 420 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 421 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 423 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 426 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 427 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 428 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 429 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 401 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 402 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 404 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 406 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 409 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 410 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 411 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 413 of 2017
With
Page 2 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 414 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 417 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 418 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 419 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 422 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 424 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 425 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 430 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 431 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 434 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 435 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 436 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 441 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 443 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT)
NO. 2 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 443 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 444 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 447 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 448 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 451 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 452 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 453 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 454 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 455 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 456 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 457 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 458 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 461 of 2017
Page 3 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 462 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 432 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 433 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 437 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 438 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 439 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 440 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 442 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 445 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 446 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 449 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 450 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 459 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 460 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 492 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 493 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 494 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 495 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 496 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 497 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 498 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 499 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 500 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 501 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 502 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 548 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 549 of 2017
With
Page 4 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 549 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 550 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 550 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 552 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 552 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 553 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 553 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 556 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 556 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 557 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 557 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 560 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 560 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 561 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 561 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 562 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 562 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 564 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 564 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 566 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 566 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 569 of 2017
With
Page 5 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 569 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 571 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 571 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 572 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 572 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 573 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 573 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 574 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 574 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 575 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 575 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 576 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 576 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 577 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 577 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 578 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 578 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 551 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 554 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 555 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 558 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 559 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 563 of 2017
With
Page 6 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 565 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 567 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 568 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 570 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 584 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 585 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 585 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 586 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 586 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 588 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 588 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 589 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 589 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 590 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 590 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 591 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 595 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 595 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 596 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 596 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 597 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 597 of 2017
With
Page 7 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 599 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 599 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR WITHDRAWAL/DISBURSEMENT OF AMOUNT)
NO. 2 of 2024
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 599 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 600 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 600 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 601 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 601 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 602 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 602 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 603 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 603 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 604 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 604 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 605 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 605 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 606 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 606 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 607 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 607 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 608 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 608 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 609 of 2017
Page 8 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 609 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 610 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 610 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 611 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 611 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 612 of 2017
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2017
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 612 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 587 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 592 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 593 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 594 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 598 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Sd/-
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI Sd/-
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
KADAVABHAI UKABHAI PAGHADAL
================================================================
Appearance:
Group 1
First Appeal nos.399 of 2017 to 429 of 2017
Ms Manisha L. Shah, Additional Advocate General with Mr Jay
Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant(s) No.
1
MR MIHIR THAKORE, LD. SR. COUNSEL with MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149)
Page 9 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
for the Defendant(s) No. 1
Group 2
First Appeal nos.584 of 2017 to 612 of 2017
Ms Manisha L. Shah, Additional Advocate General with Mr Raj Tanna,
learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MIHIR THAKORE, LD. SR. COUNSEL with MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149)
for the Defendant(s) No. 1
Group 3
First Appeal nos.548 of 2017 to 578 of 2017
Ms Manisha L. Shah, Additional Advocate General with Mr Siddharth
Rami, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MIHIR THAKORE, LD. SR. COUNSEL with MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149)
for the Defendant(s) Nos. 1.1-1.3, 1.4
Group 4
First Appeal nos.430 of 2017 to 462 of 2017
Ms Manisha L. Shah, Additional Advocate General with Ms Foram
Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant(s) No.
1
MR MIHIR THAKORE, LD. SR. COUNSEL with MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149)
for the Defendant(s) Nos. 1.1-1.6, 1.7
Group 5
First Appeal nos.492 of 2017 to 502 of 2017
Ms Manisha L. Shah, Additional Advocate General with Ms Rajvi
Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MIHIR THAKORE, LD. SR. COUNSEL with MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149)
for the Defendant(s) Nos. 1.1-1.6, 1.7
Group 6
First Appeal nos.371 of 2017 to 398 of 2017
Ms Manisha L. Shah, Additional Advocate General with Mr Shivam
Parikh, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MIHIR THAKORE, LD. SR. COUNSEL with MR TEJAS P SATTA(3149)
for the Defendant(s) Nos. 1.1-1.5, 1.6
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN)
1. The above referred appeals under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1894") Page 10 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined are directed against the common judgment dated 30.06.2016 (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned judgment") passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge in;
(i) Group 1 - Land Acquisition Reference case no.71 of 2004 and other 30 reference cases;
(ii) Group 2 - Land Acquisition Reference case no.91 of 2004 and other 28 reference cases;
(iii) Group 3 - Land Acquisition Reference case no.110 of 2004 and other 30 reference cases;
(iv) Group 4 - Land Acquisition Reference case no.135 of 2004 and other 32 reference cases;
(v) Group 5 - Land Acquisition Reference case no.10 of 2006 and 10 reference cases and lastly;
(vi) Group 6 - Land Acquisition Reference case no.20 of 2006 and other 27 reference cases.
By way of common impugned judgment, all the above six groups are partly allowed. Being aggrieved, the captioned appeals by the State Government.
2. Ms Manisha L. Shah, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the lands acquired are the agricultural lands with no future prospects of development. It is further contended that reliance is placed on the agreements to sell rather than the sale instances. Also, there is no independent consideration of the evidence of the respondent-State. The evidence produced has been disregarded on the ground of it being after the issuance of section 4 notification; however, there ought to have some findings recorded in the evidence. Moreover, the quantification arrived at by the Page 11 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined reference court is based on conjectures and surmises, inasmuch as, the sale instances relied upon by the claimants were for Rs. 400/- and Rs.350/- and, the reference court has arrived at Rs.280/-. For arriving at Rs.280/- there are no reasons assigned by the learned Judge. It is further submitted that despite this Court was seized of the matter, the learned Judge exercising the powers under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), corrected the order converting the units from sq. yards to sq. mtrs. and the market value which now has been arrived is at the rate of Rs.402/- per sq. mtr.
2.1 It is next submitted that the in-principle approval was accorded by the Narmada Water Resources Department by passing a resolution dated 30.04.1997. Therefore, the intention of the State Government of proposed acquisition was known to one and all and as a result thereof and with a view to claiming higher compensation, applications were filed seeking conversion of the lands from agriculture to non-agriculture purpose (hereinafter referred to as "the NA"). With a view to taking advantage of the upcoming irrigation project that the orders were passed granting NA permission on certain terms and conditions. One such case, was taken in suo motu revision before the Special Secretary, Revenue Department who, vide order dated 31.01.2001 allowed the revision and the permission granting conversion by the Taluka Panchayat was cancelled on the ground that the order dated 05.11.1997 granting NA permission was not bona fide and was issued with a malafide motive considering the proposed acquisition. The said order was challenged in Special Civil Application no. 5655 of 2001 which was dismissed by passing an order dated 23.07.2001 and this Court, has categorically observed that the intention on the part of the authorities and the petitioners was to defraud the government. The parties were aware about the upcoming irrigation projects and Page 12 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined the area of submergence. This Court, noted that no fault can be found with the adverse inference drawn by the State Government. It is further submitted that Letters Patent Appeal was preferred which came to be withdrawn vide order dated 02.08.2004.
2.2 It is further submitted that initially, the documentary evidence produced were not considered by the learned Judge and in the first round of litigation this Court vide order dated 10.08.2015 passed in First Appeal no. 649 of 2025 and allied matters, remitted the matter with a direction to the court below to decide it afresh. It is submitted that the reference court did not consider the evidence produced at Exhs. 19 to 24 i.e. the sale deeds but relied upon the agreements to sell produced by the claimants at Exhs. 34 to 36 treating it as the base to decide the compensation; however, Exhs. 34 to 36 were not the sale deeds but agreements to sell of the proposed NA lands executed on a stamp paper. It is submitted that one of the covenants of the agreement to sell reflects that an amount of Rs.75,000/- was paid in cash while the remaining amount of Rs.4,50,600/- was to be paid after the receipt of the NA permission. Another condition also states that the sale deed shall be executed after the payment of the balance amount. Also, as per condition no.5 the agreement to sell is without possession. It is further submitted that evidence Exhs.35 and 36 are almost identical. A bare perusal of the evidence Exhs. 34 to 36 suggests that stamp papers were purchased in the month of December, 1997 and they were presented before the Sub-Registrar during the month of December 1997 itself. It is submitted that the learned Judge, was of the opinion that Exh.34 was sold for Rs.5,25,600/- at Rs.400 per sq. yard while Exh.35 sale deed, the land was sold for Rs.9,67,223/- at the rate of Rs.400/- per sq. yard. Similarly, agreement to sell Exh. 36 was also treated as sale deed and the land having been sold for Rs.350/- per sq. yard. It is submitted that the finding that the land Page 13 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined which was sold i.e. Exh. 34 was NA land, was erroneous. Moreover, the claimants have not produced any documents on record to substantiate that the agreements to sell Exhs. 34 to 36 have been culminated into sale deeds.
2.3 It is next submitted that the sale deeds Exhs. 58 and 59, were of the year 1997 of village Charan Samadiyala while, Exhs. 123 and 128 were also of the year 1997-1998 of village Thanagalol i.e. before the date of issuance of the section 4 notification. It is submitted that it is true that majority of the sale deeds were subsequent to the section 4 notification but, some of them were at the time of section 4 notification and therefore, those pieces of evidence ought to have been considered with a view to balancing the equity. Disregarding the said evidence, exclusive reliance is placed on the evidence Exhs. 34 to 36 i.e. the agreements to sell.
2.4 Adverting to the impugned judgment, it is submitted that the learned Judge has positively concluded that there is no industry or commercial building or any residential houses nearby the acquired lands. It is also observed that there is no scope of development in near future and the findings have remained unchallenged. It is submitted that the learned Judge has opined that since the lands are not having potential of NA, they have to be considered as agricultural lands.
2.5 It is submitted that analyzing the sale deeds produced by both the parties, it has been stated by the learned Judge that the sale instances relied upon by the respondent State contains the lower rates and majority of the sale instances are subsequent to section 4 notification. No reasons have been assigned except stating that the sale instances are after the section 4 notification, let alone any independent assessment. It is submitted that acquisition in Page 14 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined question is of a huge parcel of land, running into lacs of sq. mtrs. whereas the sale instances namely Exhs. 34 to 36 are small parcels of land and have been taken as a base to decide the compensation.
2.6 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs. B. Gunashekar & anr. reported in (2025) SCC OnLine SC 793 for the proposition that according to the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the agreement to sell, whether with possession or without possession is not a conveyance. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of P. Ram Reddy & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Hyderabad & ors. reported in (1995) 2 SCC 305 to contend that whether the acquired land is building potentiality or not has to be decided upon reference to the material to be placed on record or made available by the parties concerned and not solely on surmises, conjectures or pure guess. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Chandrashekar (Dead) by LRS. & Ors. vs. Land Acquisition Officer & anr. reported in (2012) 1 SCC 390 for the principle of permissible deduction towards the development considering various parameters. It is urged that the appeals deserve to be allowed.
3. Per contra Mr Mihir J. Thakore, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr Tejas P. Satta, learned advocate for the claimants, at the outset has submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Judge in passing the order dated 02.03.2017, exercising the powers under section 152 and converting the sq. yard into sq. mtr. and deriving the figure of the compensation. No error has been committed by the learned Judge in correcting the mathematical error inasmuch as, in the judgment, the amount derived was Rs.280/- per sq. yard. Appreciating the mistake, Rs.280/- was thereafter, multiplied by the unit of sq. yard i.e. 1.196. The figure Page 15 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined derived was Rs.334.88. 10% increase was allowed for two years and the clear amount of compensation determined was Rs.401.84/- per sq. mtr., which was rounded off to Rs.402/-. Therefore, it is incorrect to argue that the units have been wrongly applied while converting the area from sq. yard to sq. mtr.
3.1 It is submitted that much has been argued by referring to the resolution, alleging that based on the knowledge of the proposed acquisition, the lands have been converted into NA and agreements to sell have been executed. It is submitted that the NA permission was granted by the panchayat by passing an order dated 05.11.1997 and thereafter sale deeds were executed and were produced on the record by way of Exhs.19 to 23. It is submitted that Exh.19, is the sale deed of land bearing survey no.108 of village Thanagalol and was for the industrial purpose. Similarly, Exh.20, is another sale deed for very same survey no.108 and for same purpose. So is the position with Exhs.21, 22 and 23. It is submitted that if sale deeds were available, they could not have been ignored. It is submitted that the post sanction of the conversion of land into NA, the Secretary, Revenue Department, passed an order after three years on 31.01.2001; however, the sale deeds executed still remains, despite the cancellation of the NA permission.
3.2 While inviting the attention of this Court to Exhs. 34 to 36, i.e. the agreements to sell, it is submitted that all were without possession and the area was little more than 1000 sq. yards to 2000 sq. yards and the price determined was Rs. 400/- per sq. yard. It is submitted that the agreements to sell may not give title, but, they do indicate the negotiated prices which are of the year 1997 and all were with respect to different survey numbers. Moreover, all the agreements to sell are registered documents and they carry sanctity in the eyes of law.
Page 16 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined 3.3 It is next submitted that Exh.77 is the award passed under section 11 in respect of acquisition of the land for the self same public purpose of village Khajuri Gundala. The amount determined was Rs.10/- per sq. mtr. and the land involved was admeasuring 200 sq. mtrs. Reference was preferred and ultimately, before the High Court the State Government did not press the first appeals considering the petty claim of less than Rs.1,00,000/-. It is further submitted that therefore, the market value determined is accepted by the State Government and hence, now it is not proper to argue that the compensation determined is on a higher side.
3.4 It is further submitted that the learned Judge has in detail discussed the evidence Exhs. 34 to 36 taking note that the lands are proposed NA lands. The evidence produced by the respondent-State was considered and the learned Judge was of the opinion that the sale instances produced by the applicants were in close proximity to the date of section 4 notification and hence, it would be proper to take into consideration the sale instances of the said date rather than the evidence of sale instances produced by the respondent- State which has been executed subsequent to the section 4 notification. It is further submitted that grievance is also raised regarding non-consideration of Exhs. 15, 17, 20, 26, 28 and 29; however, there is no direction issued in past by this Court to consider the same. It is therefore urged that no error has been committed by the Court below in assessing the compensation and in rightly relying upon the evidence Exhs. 34 to 36.
3.5 It is further submitted that the admission of the Land Acquisition Officer has been considered, recording the prices of all three villages namely Thanagalol, Charan Samadhiyala and Khajuri Gundala being the same. It is next submitted that after in-depth deliberation and discussion, the learned Judge considered the Page 17 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined market value initially at Rs.350/- for irrigated land and Rs.280/- for the lands acquired. Subsequently, upon remand the matter was considered again and now the learned Judge has rightly determined the amount of Rs.402/- per sq. mtr. The appeals do not deserve to be entertained and be dismissed.
4. Ms Manisha L. Shah, learned Additional Advocate General in rejoinder, submitted that the State is in appeal and is aggrieved by the compensation determined. A plain reading of the judgment, clearly suggests that there is not a whisper regarding the evidence produced by the State much less, the reasons on record, except the two lines. This Court in the earlier round of litigation accepted the stand of the State Government of non-consideration of the evidence Exhs. 15, 17, 20, 26, 28 and 29 and therefore, remanded the appeals for deciding it afresh. It is further submitted that how the figure of Rs.280/- is arrived at is unclear. It is further submitted that as per the provisions of the Act of 1894, the requirement is to consider the sale instances and not the negotiated prices as reflected in the agreements to sell and do not inspire confidence regarding its genuineness, they having been executed during the same time. Besides, the High Court, has clearly deprecated the action of the claimants observing that the intention was to defraud the State Government, in view of the upcoming irrigation project and the area of submergence.
4.1 It is further submitted that though the agreements to sell may contain negotiated price for the NA land but the same was subject to permission issued by the State authorities and was questioned and quashed by the High Court. Observations made by the High Court in the judgment while dismissing the petition are self explanatory. It is submitted that if the agreements to sell were culminated into sale deeds it was open to the claimants to have Page 18 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined produced the sale deeds by adducing evidence, inasmuch as, liberty was reserved by the Division Bench while remanding the matter by passing an order dated 10.08.2015; however, no evidence was produced. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed in U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Jainul Islam & Anr. reported in (1998) 2 SCC 467 for the proposition that if there is no evidence produced, substantiating that the agreements had matured into sale transaction after a long span of their execution, the agreements were not of any assistance in the matter of determination of the market value.
4.2 So far as the order passed by this court in First Appeal no. 3358 of 2012 and another is concerned, since the claims were petty, the appeals were not pressed; however, one cannot overlook the clarification recorded by the court that the order has been passed without entering into the merits; clarifying that it shall not come in the way while deciding other cognate appeals arising out of the same judgment. Considering the quantum, the High Court chose not to enter into the merits of the matter.
4.3 It is submitted that it is sought to be argued that the sale deeds Exhs. 19 and 20, are not set aside; however, they are on the basis of NA permissions, which have been cancelled. Once the NA permission is cancelled, the lands would continue to retain its character as agricultural lands and thus, the compensation is to be determined as per the tenure of the land. It is to be noted that the quantification at Rs.280/- is incorrect, as it was based on mere assumptions. It is submitted that it is not in dispute that the lands involved are large tracts of lands with no potential of development and when the land is open and undeveloped, the deduction has to be upto 75% or as indicated in the judgment in the case of Chandrashekar (D) by LRS. and Others vs. Land Acquisition Officer Page 19 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined and Another (supra). It is therefore urged that the learned Judge committed a grave error in determining the compensation on a higher side more particularly, when the lands acquired were not capable of fetching higher value.
5. In further response, Mr Mihir Thakore, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the agreements to sell could not have been culminated into sale deeds as the lands were acquired by the State Government and therefore the contention is misplaced and would be of no help. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Ram Kishan (Since deceased) Through his Lrs. Etc. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 388 for the proposition that reverse deduction would be permissible so as to arrive at higher exemplar. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered), Faridkot & Ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. reported in (2012) 5 SCC 432 for the proposition that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, highest of the exemplars, has to be considered and accepted if it is satisfied that it is bona fide transaction. It has been further noted that when the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide transaction entered into into between a willing purchaser and willing seller near about the time of acquisition.
5.1 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Manilal Shamalbhai Patel (Deceased) & ors. vs. Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & anr. reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 354 for the proposition of permissible deduction of 30% to 50% towards the development of the land. The principle has been reiterated that large areas do not fetch the same price as is offered for the smaller plots of lands and therefore, some amount of deduction is Page 20 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined permissible on account of largeness of area which would be atleast 10%.
5.2 It is submitted that in the case on hand the lands acquired are abutting to Jetpur town. Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor vs. L Kamalamma (SMT) Dead by LRS & Ors. K. Krishnamachari & Ors. reported in (1998) 2 SCC 385 for the proposition of applying appropriate deduction towards development of the land for the purpose of roads, sewers, drains, etc. For similar proposition reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Dyagala Devamma & ors. reported in (2018) 8 SCC 485.
5.3 Further reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar & anr. vs. State of Haryana reported in (2016) 4 SCC 544 for the proposition that the amount of compensation that the court can award is no longer restricted to an amount claimed by the applicant and 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. It is therefore submitted that even if there is no cross-objection filed by the claimants, it is bounden duty of the court to award just and fair compensation.
6. In brief response, Ms Manisha L. Shah, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that what is open to the claimants is to defend the impugned judgment but the claimants cannot ask for enhancement. It is submitted that the land acquired is not adjacent but is at the distance of 2-4 kilometers from Jetpur town which, is clearly recorded in the impugned judgment. Distinguishing the judgment in the case of Ram Kishan (Since deceased) etc. vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra), it is submitted that the Court has to Page 21 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined adopt a pragmatic view while assessing the market value. The judgment in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Registered) Faridkot & ors. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (supra), has been distinguished by submitting that the reference court had considered the sale transaction and the Apex Court while taking note of the same observed that the bona fide sale transaction proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighborhood of the acquired lands are the real basis to determine the market value. In the case on hand it is submitted that the sale exemplars are not sale instances and are agreements to sell, which are not bona fide and tainted with illegalities, as declared by this Court.
6.1 The judgment in the case of Manilal Shamalbhai Patel (Deceased) & ors. vs. Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) & anr.(supra), helps the State rather than the claimants inasmuch as, in paragraph 11, it is clearly noted that the agricultural lands, may be with potential of a developed area, but it requires development towards various amenities before making it usable as industrial site. It is submitted that the deduction has to be towards the development and towards largeness.
6.2 So far as the judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar & anr. vs. State of Haryana (supra) is concerned, it is submitted that in paragraph 12, considering the distance, the price determined of the property of adjoining village was not considered and it was reduced compared to the amount already granted in the judgment of Land Acquisition Officer Revenue Divisional Officer, Chittor vs. L Kamalamma (SMT) Dead by LRS & Ors. K. Krishnamachari & Ors. (supra). The court has allowed proper deduction for the development of the lands towards sewer, drains etc. It is therefore submitted that the market value determined by the learned Judge is highly improper, illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside.
Page 22 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. Perused and considered the record and proceedings, the judgments cited as well as the documents made available on the record.
8. The captioned appeals involved a chequered history and hence, the following facts would be necessary to consider the nature of the acquisition, the proceedings initiated in past and orders passed thereon by this Court.
9. The State Government in its Narmada & Water Resources Department issued a Resolution dated 30.04.1997 granting administrative approval for the work of construction of Survo Water Resources Project near village Charan Samadhiyala, taluka Jetpur, District Rajkot (Exh.110 - page 1204 - Part-3 - Paper Book no.1). Lands admeasuring 34,09,456 sq. mtrs. were acquired for the above referred purpose of three villages, namely, (i) Charan Samadhiyala - admeasuring 16,81,323 sq. mtrs.; (ii) Thanagalol - admeasuring 6,53,388 sq. mtrs. and (iii) Khajuri Gundala - admeasuring 10,89,929 sq. mtrs. The present appeals are with respect to villages Charan Samadhiyala and Khajuri Gundala.
10. Section 4 notifications were published, followed by Section 6 notifications and respective awards were passed by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 11 of the Act of 1894, determining the compensation of Rs.7.50/- per sq. mtr. for the irrigated land and Rs.5/- per sq. mtr. for the non-irrigated land. Being dissatisfied, the claimants preferred the above referred 163 Land Acquisition Reference cases before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal and all were consolidated into six different groups; the details of the acquisition proceedings and the corresponding first appeals filed are, enumerated hereinbelow:
Page 23 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Sr Village Group and Land Date of Date of First Appeal no Acquisition section 4 Award under nos.
Reference case notification section 11 nos. 1 Charan Group 1 - Land 20.05.1999 04.05.2002 First Appeal Samadhiyala Acquisition nos.399/17 to Reference case 429/17 no.71 of 2004 and other allied references 2 Khajuri Group 2 - Land 20.05.1999 30.04.2002 First Appeal Gundala Acquisition nos.584/17 to Reference case 612/17 no.91 of 2004 and other allied references 3 Khajuri Group 3 - Land 17.09.1998 29.11.2001 First Appeal Gundala Acquisition nos.548/17 to Reference case 578/17 no.110 of 2004 and other allied references 4 Charan Group 4 - Land 20.05.1999 04.05.2002 First Appeal Samadhiyala Acquisition nos.430/17 to Reference case 462/17 no.135 of 2004 and other allied references 5 Charan Group 5 - Land 09.09.1999 18.11.2002 First Appeal Samadhiyala Acquisition nos.492/17 to Reference case 502/17 no.10 of 2006 and other allied references 6 Charan Group 6 - Land 09.09.1999 07.11.2002 First Appeal Samadhiyala Acquisition nos.371/17 to Reference case 398/17 no.20 of 2006 and other allied references
11. Following issues were formulated vide Exh. 7 in the above referred Land Acquisition Reference cases and were answered accordingly:
Sr. Issues framed Issues answered
no.
1 Whether the compensation awarded Partly in the
to the claimant is inadequate? affirmative.
Page 24 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
2 Whether case filed in limitation? In the affirmative.
3 What order? As per final order.
12. One of the applicants has filed the affidavits in all the above referred cases containing identical contentions and averments.
Similarly, Ratubhai Bhemabhai Chaudhary, Deputy Collector, Land Irrigation & Rehabilitation, Rajkot has filed separate affidavits in all the six groups raising similar contention. The affidavit of applicant Shri Amrabhai Desabhai Harijan of Land Acquisition Reference case no.78 of 2004 (Exhs.11 and 75) was referred to as well as the oral evidence of Ratubhai Bhemabhai Chaudhary, Deputy Collector, Land Irrigation & Rehabilitation, Rajkot (Exh.60). Considering the documentary and oral evidence, the learned Judge, vide judgment dated 07.04.2014, has determined the compensation at the rate of Rs.350/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.280/- per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land. Relevant operative portion, reads thus:
" 1. All the above Land Reference Cases are hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs.
2. It is hereby ordered that all the applicants are entitled to get compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.350/- per sq. mts. for irrigated land and Rs.280/- per sq. mts. for non- irrigated land whatever applicable from the date of Notification under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act. But, whatever amount paid in the award by the LAO to all the applicants, shall be deducted from Rs.350/- per sq. mtrs. for irrigated land and Rs.280/- per sq. mts. for non-irrigated land as awarded in this judgment, and difference amount shall be payable to the applicants of all the cases.
3. The opponent is hereby directed to pay the difference amount in the value of the land to the applicants, together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a. from the first year and at the rate of 15% p.a. for rest of the remaining years, together with solatium at the rate of 30% on additional amount as described in the statement annexed hereto from the date of notification till the date of award.
4. The original judgment be kept in the Main Land Reference Case of all the Six Groups and a copy thereof be kept in Page 25 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined remaining each Land Reference Cases of all the six groups.
5. Award to be drawn accordingly."
13. The judgment of the Reference Court, was subject matter of challenge before this Court by way of First Appeal nos.649 of 2015 & other allied matters. Together with the First Appeal, civil application (for stay) no.5072 of 2015 was preferred. While admitting the First Appeal, this Court, passed an order dated 01.05.2015 directing the State Government to deposit 50% of the amount awarded with proportionate interest and cost. The order dated 01.05.2015 in the civil application for stay, reads thus:
"For the purpose of deciding this application, we have heard the learned counsel for both sides and also perused the impugned award. We notice that the additional compensation awarded by the reference court is substantially higher than what was awarded by the land acquisition officer. To grant such revision, the learned Judge relied on certain sale instances produced by the claimants as also the proceedings for collection of stamp duty instituted by the Stamp Valuation Officer. We are prima facie of the opinion that the sale instances have been relied upon without indicating the nature of land under sale, location of land and such other relevant considerations. We also notice that the stamp valuation proceedings were only at the notice stage and before the Court, no final order was brought on record.
Under the circumstances, being a somewhat peculiar case, we require the applicant State Government to deposit 50 per cent of the amount awarded by the Reference Court with proportionate interest and costs and other statutory benefits within a period of four weeks from today. Upon such deposit, 50 per cent of such deposited amount shall be released in favour of the claimants. Remaining 50 per cent shall be invested in any nationalized bank, initially for a period of five years, such investment to be renewed from time to time till the final disposal of the appeal.
On above condition of deposit of amount as directed, there shall be stay of execution and operation of impugned award. Rule is made absolute. Claimants are permitted to serve this order by Direct Service."
This Court was of the prima facie opinion that the additional compensation awarded was substantially higher than what was awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer. Hence, it directed the State Government to deposit only 50% of the amount awarded by the Page 26 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Reference Court. As per the information provided, on 24.06.2015 the State Government has deposited an amount of Rs.177,39,55,165/- (i.e. Rs.137,16,78,818/- at the rate of Rs.350/- per sq. mtr. together with interest for irrigated land + Rs.40,22,76,347/- at the rate of Rs.280/- per sq. mtr. together with interest for non-irrigated land). 50% of the amount so deposited, i.e. Rs.88,69,77,623/- was permitted to be withdrawn.
14. Subsequently, Miscellaneous Civil Application (for Modification of Order) no.1607 of 2015 was preferred praying for recall of the order dated 01.05.2015 as the State Government was of the view that allowing 50% disbursement of the deposited amount in favour of the claimants was substantially higher and it would adversely affect the coffer of the State Government if the appeals were to be allowed and the claimants would not be in a position to return the amount. The application was not entertained. Paragraphs 2 to 4.1 of the order dated 10.07.2015 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"2 Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Government Pleader would contend that while admitting the above first appeals, order dated 01.05.2015 was passed in Civil Application Nos.5072 to 5234 of 2015 directing the applicant State government to deposit 50% of the amount awarded by the Reference Court with proportionate interest and costs within a period of four weeks from the date of passing the order and upon such deposit, 50% of such deposited amount to be realized in favour of the claimants and remaining 50% of the amount to be invested in any nationalized bank, initially for a period of 5 years and to be renewed from time to time till the final disposal of appeals. It is further submitted that claimant after receipt of such amount in case if applicant - appellant - State of Gujarat succeeds in first appeals, award passed by the Reference Court is set aside, the claimants would not be in a position to return the amount. It is further submitted that earlier also First Appeal No.1054 of 2012 and other matters in which Reference Court relied on six sale instances was of agricultural land and for a small piece of land admeasuring 0.61 hectares, same ratio could not be applied in present group of cases wherein the land is admeasuring 329 hectares and further decision of the Apex Court reported (2012)1 SCC 390 was relied on for the purpose of calculating amount in question. Inter alia, it is submitted that thereafter at least 22% to 25% of the amount to be permitted to be withdrawn by the Page 27 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined claimant out of 50% amount ordered to be deposited, which would adversely affect the interest of the State Government and it is therefore submitted that order dated 01.05.2015 be modified / recalled accordingly.
3 Learned advocate for the claimants, however, would contend that in absence of any error apparent on the face of record and that order dated 01.05.2015 was passed after hearing the respective advocates and on perusal of the record of the case and the very arguments were advanced earlier and, therefore, all applications are required to be rejected.
4 Upon consideration of overall facts and circumstances, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case and keeping in mind the parameters of Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code, 1908, we find no substance in the arguments canvassed by learned Government Pleader and the grounds pressed into service for modifying / recalling order dated 01.05.2015 are the grounds on which appeals are already admitted against the award of Reference Court. Besides, no error or mistake apparent on the face of record appeared and that there is no discovery of new or important material or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant - State of Gujarat or could not be produced before the order dated 01.05.2015 came to be passed. Even no sufficient reason exists for reviewing / recalling or modifying the order as prayed for.
4.1 However, it goes without saying that each of the claimants shall file undertakings on oath before the court that the amount that may be received by each of the claimants pursuant to order dated 01.05.2015 shall be subject to the outcome of first appeal and in case the award of Reference Court is set aside finally, such amount shall be returned, as per direction of the Court passing such order and failure to which will entail the State Government to recover the amount by following procedure laid down in accordance with law, including under the provisions of Bombay Land Revenue Code."
15. Although the application seeking modification/recall was not entertained. In the penultimate paragraph 4.1, this Court, required the claimants to file an undertaking on oath that the amount that may be received pursuant to the order dated 01.05.2015, shall be subject to the outcome of the first appeal and in case the award of the Reference Court is set aside the said amount would be returned as per the direction of the Court passing such order and failure to which will entail the State Government to recover the amount in accordance with law.
Page 28 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined
16. Subsequently, this Court, on 10.08.2015, while partly allowing the appeals passed the following order:
"1. Since the facts of all these appeals are identical, they are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. In First appeal Nos.1054 of 2012, 1055 of 2012, 1057 of 2012 to 1067 of 2012 and First Appeal Nos.2877 of 2012 to 2881 of 2012, the appellant-State of Gujarat has challenged the common judgment and award dated 13.04.2011 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gondal in L.A.R. Nos. 153 of 2004 to 168 of 2004 and L.A.R. Nos.343 of 2004 to 345 of 2004, whereby the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of 342/- per sq. meter for irrigated lands and Rs.275/ for non-irrigated lands respectively, over and above the amount of compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking the possession for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till its realization. The Reference Court also awarded solatium at the rate of 30% on the additional amount of compensation.
3. In First Appeal Nos. 649 of 2015 to 811 2012, the appellant- State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment and award dated 07.04.2014 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gondal in L.A.R. Nos. 71 of 2004 to 90 of 2004 and L.A.R Nos.32 of 2013 to 42 of 2013, whereby the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation to the claimants at the rate of 350/- per sq. meter for irrigated lands and Rs.280/- for nonirrigated lands respectively. The Reference Court further directed to deduct the amount of compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer from Rs.350/- and 280/- per sq. meter. The Reference Court also directed to pay the interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of taking the possession for the first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum till realization on the difference amount. The Reference Court awarded solatium at the rate of 30% on the additional amount of compensation.
4. The facts, in brief, are that the lands of the original claimants were acquired by the appellant-State of Gujarat for "Survo Irrigation Scheme" and a Notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued by the competent Authority. Thereafter, the Land Acquisition Officer passed his award and fixed the market value at Rs.7.50/- per sq. meter for the irrigated land and Rs.5/- for the non-irrigated land. Being aggrieved by the said award, the original claimants preferred References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Reference Court decided the Reference and passed the award as stated hereinabove. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid award, the present appeals have been preferred by the appellant on the grounds set out in the memo of appeals.
5. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader submitted that the Reference Court has committed gross error in relying on the sale instances of small piece of agricultural land.Page 29 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined According to the learned Government Pleader the same ratio cannot be applied in the present group of appeals since the sale instances were of a small piece of land admeasuing 0.61 Acres however, in the present case the lands is admeasuring 329 hectares. It is further contended by the learned Government Pleader for the appellant that the Reference Court has ignored the relevant documents produced at Exhibit Nos. 15, 16, 17, 20, 28,
29. Therefore, she urged that this Court may remand all the appeals to the Reference Court to adjudicate the same afresh.
6. Though served none appears for the respondents of First Appeal Nos. 649 of 2015 to 811 of 2015.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. From the record it appears that the Reference Court while deciding the references not appreciated the material on record in its true spirit, more particularly the documents produced at Exhibits 15, 17, 20, 26, 28 and 29. Therefore, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we remand all the appeals to the concerned Reference Court for deciding the same afresh. The concerned Reference Court is directed to decide the Reference within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The concerned Reference Court shall conduct the proceedings in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice in its true spirit. Both sides will be at liberty to adduce the evidence and raise all contentions permissible under the law before the Reference Court.
8. It is clarified that 25% amount which has been paid to the original claimants will not be recovered from them. The balance amount along with interest which would be accumulated on the amount will remain with the Reference Court till final disposal of the Reference and whosoever succeeds will be allowed to withdraw the said amount. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
9. The present appeals stand partly allowed. The impugned judgments and award of the Reference Court are quashed and set aside. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Reference Court forthwith."
17. In the penultimate paragraph, the Coordinate Bench, clarified that 25% of the amount paid to the original claimants shall not be recovered with a further direction that the balance amount together with the interest accumulated shall remain with the Reference Court. This Court, further clarified that whosoever succeeds will be allowed to withdraw the said amount. Pertinently, the above- referred order directing the State Government not to recover the Page 30 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined 25% of the amount paid to the claimants, i.e. Rs.88,69,77,623/- approximately, has been accepted and not challenged. Therefore, to that extent, the State Government has accepted the amount awarded by the Reference Court.
18. Apropos the above referred judgment dated 10.08.2015, the reference cases were decided once again and vide impugned judgment, the compensation for the acquired lands was determined at the uniform rate of Rs.280 per sq. yard and thereafter the Court converted the market value by multiplying Rs.280/- with the unit of sq. mtr. i.e. 0.836 and the amount derived was Rs.234/- per sq. mtr. and thereafter the Court added 10% appreciation for 2 years i.e. Rs.23.4+Rs.23.4 together with other statutory benefits under the Act of 1894. Paragraphs 38 to 40 and the operative portion are reproduced hereinbelow:
"38. So, it appears from the sale instances produced at Ex.34 and 35 that the bulk of land had been sold at the rate of Rs.400 per square yard and as per another sale deed produced at Ex.36, the land had been sold at Rs.350/- per square yard. But this court also considers the fact that there is marginally distance between the village Charan Samadhiyala and Thana Galol of which the sale instances are produced at Ex.34 to 36. Considering such situation of distance between this village and also considering some marginally difference of price between these two villages, instead of taking such prices of Rs.400/- and Rs.350/= per square yard for proposed non-agricultural land it means the agricultural land, this court deem it fit to consider the just and proper valuation of the agricultural land as Rs.280/-. Such sale instances appears to be sold at Rs.400/- and 350/- per square yard. As per units of land measurement 1 Square yard is equal to 0.8361. Now, if we convert the yard in to square meter, the figure would work out as Rs.280×0.8361=234.108 which is rounded off as Rs.234. Now, it appears from the sale instances that they have been executed in the year, 1997, while the lands in question have been acquired in the year 1999. So, probably the applicants are entitled to get 10% increase per year. So, the figure is worked out as Rs.234+23.4+23.4=280.8 which is rounded off as Rs.280. So, the applicants are entitled to get Rs.280 per square meter towards the compensation.
39. So far as the amount claimed by the applicants of all the cases for prices of pipelines, trees, well, etc. situated in the lands of the applicants and the damages caused to them are concerned, it Page 31 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined clearly appears from the documentary as well as oral evidences led by both the parties that the applicants have not produced any evidence to show that the damages caused to their trees, well, pipelines etc. and have also not produced any evidences or bills to show that how much damage caused to their trees, pipelines, well etc. Hence, the applicants are not entitled to get any amount in respect of damages caused to their trees, well, pipelines etc.
40. So, in view of above discussion, considering the facts and circumstances as well as the documentary and oral evidences earlier produced by both the parties. More particularly considering the observation made by the Hon'ble High Court while remanding all these reference to this court and after giving further opportunities to both the parties to adduce their additional evidence and even after considering the documents produced at Ex.15,17,20,26,28 & 29 as directed by the Hon'ble High Court, the applicants are entitled to get compensation of Rs.280/- per square meter for his all lands and whatever amount awarded by Spl.L.A.O. shall be deducted from Rs.280/- and each applicant is entitled to get difference amount per sq.mts. Hence, I decide issues No.1 accordingly partly in the affirmative.
// ORDER \\
1. All the above Land Reference Cases (Reference Applications of All the Six Groups) are hereby partly allowed with proportionate costs.
2. It is hereby ordered that all the applicants are entitled to get compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs.280/- per sq.mts. for their lands from the date of Notification under Sec.4 of the Land Acquisition Act. But, whatever amount paid in the award by the LAO to all the applicants, shall be deducted from Rs.280/- per sq.mtrs. and difference amount shall be payable to the applicants of all the cases.
3. The opponent is hereby directed to pay the difference amount in the value of the land to the applicants, together with interest thereon at the rate of 9% p.a. from the first year and at the rate of 15% p.a. for rest of the remaining years, together with solatium at the rate of 30% on additional amount as described in the statement annexed hereto from the date of notification till the date of award.
4. The applicants are also entitled to get 12% price rice increase on the market value under Sec.23(1)(a) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the date of notification under Sec.4 of the Act till the date of award.
5. The original judgment be kept in the Main Land Reference Case of all the Six Groups and a copy thereof be kept in remaining each Land Reference Cases of all the six groups.
6. Award to be drawn accordingly."Page 32 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined
19. The captioned appeals were filed before this Court against the impugned judgment and in civil application (for Stay) no.1248 of 2017 in First Appeal no.399 of 2017, following order dated 10.02.2017 was passed:
"1. RULE returnable on 7th March 2017.
2. On perusal of record and order dated 30.4.2012 and 6.11.2012 passed in earlier round of litigation in Civil Application (for Stay) No.4415 of 2002 and allied applications, stay was granted on condition that the State authority to deposit 50% of the awarded amount and out of this 50% amount was permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants and remaining 50% amount was ordered to be deposited in the Fixed Deposit. After the judgment dated 8.7.2016 of the Reference Court impugned in the present set of Appeals, the remaining amount kept in Fixed Deposits as per the earlier order is also withdrawn by the claimants. Thus, 50% of the amount with interest upto 31.10.2016 is already withdrawn and as per the appellant-State Government the amount withdrawn by the claimants is Rs.21.84 Crores against the total amount of compensation of Rs.42.43 Crores.
3. Under the circumstances, we deem it just and proper to stay the award impugned without directing the State Government to deposit any amount.
4. Liberty is reserved for the claimants to prefer an application after the review application is decided by the Reference Court. "
20. Again, the Division Bench passed the further order on 17.07.2017 in Civil Application (for Stay) no.1248 of 2017 in First Appeal no.399 of 2017 which, reads thus:
"1. The learned counsel has drawn Court's attention on the order passed by this Court on 1st May 2016, the similar matter in Civil Application (For Stay) No.5072 of 2016 in First Appeal No.649 of 2015 To Civil Application No.5234 of 2015 in First Appeal No.811 of 2015 and submitted that on the same terms the order be passed. The matter is also covered. Though served, non appears for the respondent.
2. Under the circumstance, we require the applicant-State Government to deposit 50 percent of the amount awarded by the Reference Court with proportionate interest and costs and other statutory benefits within a period of four weeks from today. Upon such deposit, 50 per cent of such deposited amount shall be released in favour of the claimants. Remaining 50 per cent shall be invested in any nationalized bank, initially for a period of five years, such investment to be renewed from time to time till the Page 33 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined final disposal of the appeal.
3. On above condition of deposit of amount as directed, there shall be stay of execution and operation of impugned award. Rule is made absolute. Claimants are permitted to serve this order by Direct service."
Paragraph 2 of the order suggest that the coordinate Bench allowed 50% of the amount so deposited to be released in favour of the claimants and remaining 50% to be invested in any nationalized bank. It is not clear that when by previous order the Court allowed stay without any deposit then as to under what circumstances another order of deposit of 50% of the total amount and withdrawal of 50% was passed. Be that as it may.
21. The claimants of main Land Acquisition Reference Case no. 78 of 2004, thereafter preferred applications Exhs. 158 & Ors. before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, inter alia, requesting it to suitably modify the impugned judgment as the conversion was not proper and the amount of compensation instead of Rs.280/- should be Rs.402/- per sq. mtr. The said applications were objected to by the respondent State vide Exh.159 & Ors. The learned Judge, accepting the applications below Exhs.158 & Ors., rectified the calculation by passing the common order dated 02.03.2017, which reads thus:
"1. The learned advocate for the applicants filed these applications in all the group cases under Sec. 152 of C.P.C. to correct arithmetical mistake in judgment and decree passed by this court on 30/06/2016. It is averred that the Hon'ble Court has pronounced judgment on dated 30/06/2016 wherein, in para-38 page No.99, the Court has considered "1 square yard is equal to 0.836. Now, if we convert the yard into square meter, the figure would work out as Rs. 280x0.836=234.108 which is rounded off as Rs.234.. So, probably the applicants are entitled to get 10% increase per year. So, the figure is worked out as Rs.234+23.4+23.4=280.8, which is rounded off as Rs.280. So, the applicants are entitled to get Rs.280 per square meter towards the compensation". It is averred that the court has awarded Rs.280/- per square yard and converted it into square meter, awarded Rs.234/- per square meter and also awarded 10% increase per year for two years and thereby entitled applicants to get Rs. 280/- per square meter compensation. The Page 34 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined learned advocate for the applicants has drawn attention of this court in his application that there is arithmetical mistake in conversion of square yard into square meter. Actually, 1 square meter is equal to 1.196 sq.yard. So, if the court has considered Rs.280/- per square yard then the amount of Rs.334.88 would work out per 1.196. Sq.yard and considering 10% increase per year for two years, the figure would work out as Rs.334.88+33.48+33.48=401.84 which is rounded off as Rs.402/- per square meter. So, he has requested to correct arithmetical mistake in the judgment and award Rs.402/- per square meter instead of Rs.280/- per square meter.
2. On the other side, the learned A.G.P for the opponent has filed common objections in all the above applications at Ex.159, 158, 161, 163, 158 and 179 respectively and contended that it is not arithmetical mistake but by making observations in para-40 of page No.100 and 101, the court has awarded Rs.280 per square meter and therefore, now there is no necessity to correct arithmetical mistake as alleged by the learned advocate for the applicants. Therefore, he has prayed to reject the application.
3. Read the applications and considered the objections of opponent. I have also carefully gone through the judgment pronounced by the court on dated 30/06/2016. I have also heard the learned advocate for the applicants and learned A.G.P. for the opponent State.
4. Having heard the arguments of learned advocates of both the sides and considering the facts and circumstances of these applications, it appears that the Court has pronounced the common judgment in All the Land Reference Cases (group cases) on 30/06/2016 and awarded Rs.280/- per square meter. It appears from para No.38 of page No.99 of the judgment dated 30/06/2016, the Court has considered Rs.280/- per sq.yard and ultimately converted it into sq.mts. i.e. 1 square yard is equal to 0.8361 sq.mts. and worked out the figure as Rs.280x0.8361=234.108 and rounded off as Rs.234/- and considering the fact that the lands have been acquired in the year, 1997 and thereby entitled the applicants to get 10% increase per year and ultimately worked out the figure as Rs.234+23.4+23.4=280.8 which was rounded off as Rs.280/-. So, it becomes clear from the judgment that the court has fixed Rs.280/- per square yard and by converted it in square meter, awarded Rs.234/- and also given two years price rice at the rate of 10% and awarded Rs.280/- per square meter. Now, it appears from the judgment that the court has considered that the applicants are entitled to get Rs.280/- per square yard. But, 1 square meter is equal to 1.196 sq.yard. The Court has considered and awarded Rs.280/- per 1 sq.yard. and not for 1.196 sq.yard. If we consider 1 sq.mts. is equal to 1.196 sq.yard then the amount would work out as Rs.280x1.196=334.88 and 10% increase per year for two years then the amount would work out as Rs.334.88+33.48+33.48=401.84 which is rounded off as Rs.402/-. So, considering the facts and circumstances of this applications and upon carefully going through the judgment dated 30/06/2016, the applicants are entitled to get Rs.402/- per sq.mts. as compensation and prima facie it appears that there is arithmetical mistake in calculation of the units of the land measurement of square yard and Page 35 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined square meter. Therefore, in the interest of justice and under Sec.152 of C.P.C. such arithmetical mistake is required to be corrected. Hence, in view of above discussion, following order is passed.
// ORDER \\
1. The applications under Sec.152 of C.P.C. are hereby allowed.
2. The applicants of all the land reference cases of all the groups are entitled to get compensation for their acquired lands at the rate of Rs.402/-per sq.mts. Except this amendment, rest of the order remains as it is and unchanged.
3. Necessary amendment/correction be carried out in the judgment and decree.
4. Copy of this order be kept in all the applications and case files.
5. No order as to costs."
22. As per the above referred order, the amount, was multiplied by the unit of sq. yard i.e. 1.196. By applying the formula of conversion in the sq. mtr. the amount derived, was Rs.334.88/- per sq. mtr. 10% increase of Rs.66.96/- for two years was added (i.e. 33.48+33.48=66.96) and the total amount determined was Rs.401.84/- per sq. mtr. The amount was rounded off and the claimants were held entitled to Rs.402/- per sq. mtr. as compensation. According to the learned Judge, there was an arithmetical error committed in calculation and the units of land measured in sq. yards and sq. mtr., was rectified in exercise of the powers under section 152 of the Code. The rate determined was Rs.280/- per sq. yard and while converting the area from sq. yard to sq. mtr. incorrect formula was applied. Initially, the market value determined was Rs.234/- per sq. mtr. Naturally, the unit of area in sq. mtr. is larger than sq. yard and the amount could not have been on a lesser side. While passing the order below applications Exh.158 & ors., the learned Judge has rightly applied the conversion formula. Mr Mihir Thakore, learned senior counsel, is right in stating that no Page 36 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined error is committed in applying the conversion formula by multiplying Rs.280/- x 1.196 for deriving the market value of Rs.401.84/-per sq. mtr. Therefore, after suitable correction was allowed in the impugned judgment, the claimants now are declared to be entitled for an amount of Rs. 402/- per sq. mtr.
23. The respondent State preferred Civil Application (for amendment) No. 2 of 2023 in R/First Appeal no.399 of 2017 and other allied matters which came to be allowed vide order dated 11.07.2024 and reads thus:
"Heard Ms.Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Additional Advocate General with Mr.Jay Trivedi, learned AGP for the applicant - State.
Draft amendments granted in all civil applications.
Considering the averments made in the amended applications, amendment as sought for in the applications is granted. Civil applications are allowed, accordingly. "
24. In view of the above, the issue which now follow is whether the learned Judge was right in determining the market value of Rs.402/- per sq. mtr.? Answer is in negative, and for answering the above issue, it would be worthwhile to consider the findings recorded in the impugned judgment. The aspect of development was considered in depth. The learned judge was of the opinion that there are no industries or commercial properties or any building in existence abutting to the acquired lands. In the opinion of the learned judge, there were no possibilities of future developments in the vicinity of the acquired lands as the claimants have failed to produce any documentary evidence substantiating either the development or the potential development in future for the purpose of treating the lands for NA. The overall statistics of the converted Page 37 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined lands was considered and it has been opined that out of total land of 5530 Hectors only 25 Hectors have been converted into NA of all the three villages. That was only 0.50 percent of the total land. Therefore, the learned judge, concluded that the compensation has to be determined considering the acquired land as agricultural land. Paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment reads thus:
"19. Now, considering the arguments of both the sides and judgment cited by the learned advocate for the opponent- State, before considering the land as non-agricultural land, some of the key factors must be looked into. Now, if we look the documentary and oral evidence produced by the applicant, it appears that at present there is no any industries or commercial property or any building or house in existence nearby the acquired land. Moreover, nearby the acquired land, there is no possibility for being used immediately or in the near future as land for putting up residential, commercial, industrial or other buildings. Therefore, the judgment relied upon by the learned advocate for the opponent is applicable to the facts of the present case. Moreover, it is for the applicants to produce some cogent and genuine documentary evidence on record to prove that the acquired lands had potential to develop in future. But, the applicants have failed to produce such documentary evidence which lead this court to believe that the lands in question were potential for development in future and to be considered for non- agricultural purpose. Moreover, the it also appears from the record that 25 Hector land out of total land of 5530 Hector of total three nearby villages have been converted into non-agricultural land. So, it is only 0.50% of total land. So, if the acquired land would have potentiality in that case, atleast some of the portions of other lands of nearby villages would have been converted into non-agricultural land. Moreover, the applicant has also stated in his cross examination that he does not know that after acquisition of the land, how much land converted into non-agricultural land and also stated that he does not know that how much other persons have applied for it and how much persons get sanction from the competent authority. So, all things clearly suggest that the acquired lands had no any potentiality to get it converted into non-agricultural land. Hence, in view of above above discussion, this court is of the view to consider the acquired lands as agricultural land and compensation would be determined considering the acquired land as agricultural land."
25. Discernibly, as per the findings recorded in paragraph 19 there is no development. No residential properties or commercial properties or industries are available. In other words, there is no development worth the name. It is pertinent to note that it was never the case of the claimants that they were cultivating and getting crops. Therefore, undisputedly, neither were the lands Page 38 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined developed nor had the potential of development in near future. The aspect of the lack of possibilities of the development in future is accepted by the claimants, so also the aspect of treating the lands as agricultural lands instead of NA.
26. Adverting to the issue of determination of the market value it is to be noted that in paragraph 22, the learned judge, has considered the sale instances produced vide Exhs.22 to 27 and 34 to 37. In paragraph 28, reference is made of the sale deeds produced by the applicants at Exhs.19 to 31 for claiming higher compensation. The sale deeds Exhs.19 to 31 were not considered inasmuch as, all were the sale instances of survey no.108. Pertinently, vide order dated 05.11.1997, the office of the Taluka Panchayat had granted the NA permission for survey no.108 for land admeasuring A-07 07 gunthas consisting of 12 plots. The said permission was cancelled in revision by the learned Secretary, Revenue Department by passing an order dated 31.01.2001 and was not interfered with by this Court by order dated 23.07.2001 which was unsuccessfully challenged in the Letters Patent Appeal no.1517 of 2001. In paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment it is observed thus:
"the sale instances produced by the learned advocate for the applicants cannot be considered as it is pertaining to the survey No.108 and the Revenue Authorities has cancelled the permission granted for conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural land."
27. Moreover, other pieces of evidence produced were Exhs.80, 82, 85, 88, 91, 94 and 99 to 102 and were not considered as they were relating to shops and residential houses. The learned judge was of the opinion that since the transactions are of the smaller plots, they cannot be considered for determining the market value. It has been observed in paragraph 30 as under:
Page 39 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined "So, such sale appears to be only for a small piece or part of the land and such transaction of small part of the land cannot be considered to be the base of the calculation of compensation."
28. Therefore, the learned Judge considered the available evidence, that is, Exhs. 34 to 36. In paragraph 22, the learned judge has observed that Exh.34 is sale deed of open NA land admeasuring 1098.54 sq. mtrs. and was sold for Rs.5,25,600/- (i.e. Rs.400/- per sq. yard). According to the learned judge, Exh.35 is also a sale deed of plot nos.3 and 4, admeasuring 2021.78 sq. mtrs. and was sold for Rs.9,67,232/- (i.e. Rs.400/- per sq. yard). So is the position with Exh.36 which also according to the learned judge, is a sale deed of a land admeasuring 1800.01 sq. mtrs. and was sold for Rs.7,56,830/- (i.e. Rs.350/- per sq. yard). It needs to be noted that the said documents considered as the sale deeds were in fact agreements to sell and why they ought not to have been considered, which aspect is dealt with in detail in the succeeding paragraphs.
29. The evidence not considered and is missing in discussion, is worth referring to. Exh.58 is a registered sale deed dated 30.01.1997 for the land admeasuring A-23 gunthas (H 1, Are 11 29 sq. mtrs. - 11,129 sq. mtrs.) and was sold for Rs.20,000/- (Rs.1.80/- per sq. mtr.). Similarly, Exh.59 is another registered sale deed dated 26.03.1997 of A-3 29 gunthas (H 1 Are 50 75 sq. mtrs.) and the land was sold for Rs.50,000/- (Rs.3.32/- per sq. mtr.). There is not a whisper in the impugned judgment as to why those registered sale deeds both of village Charan Samadhiyala were not taken into account. Moreover, it is to be noted that Exh.123, was the sale deed dated 23.09.1998 of village Thanagalol for land admeasuring A-4 00 gunthas and was sold for Rs.7.36/- per sq. mtr. Exh.128, was the registered sale deed dated 24.04.1997 which was of a smaller plot and the price determined was Rs.71.22/- per sq. mtr. Whereas, Exhs.124 to 127 and 129 to 142, 146 were sale instances of the Page 40 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined years 2000 to 2012. The sale instances were of villages Thanagalol, Charan Samadhiyala and Khajuri Gundala. In none of the sale deeds, the transactions were above Rs.150/- per sq. mtr. except in one sale deed-Exh.141 executed on 01.12.2011 of village Charan Samadhiyala which was at the rate of Rs.210/- per sq. mtr. The sale deeds produced of the subsequent dates indicate that the rates, were not more than Rs.150/- per sq. mtr.
30. As there were sale deeds produced of the years 2000 onwards, that is, after the publication of section 4 notification, a brief discussion, would be necessitated as those sale deeds provide a fair idea that even in the subsequent years the market value of the lands of the villages in question was too low. To illustrate, for the sale deed of the year 2009 of village Thanagalol - Exh.124, the area involved was H-3 A-81 41 sq. mtrs. and was sold for an amount of Rs.4,75,000/-(i.e. Rs.12.45/- per sq. mtr.). Similarly, Exh.125, is a sale deed of the year 2011; land involved was H-1 A-41 64 sq. mtrs. It was sold for an amount of Rs.4 lacs (i.e. Rs.28.24/- per sq. mtr.). In one of the sale deeds - Exh.135 of year 2014 of village Khajuri Gundala, land was admeasuring 7993 sq. mtrs. and was sold for Rs.3 lacs. (i.e. Rs.37.53/- per sq. mtr.). Furthermore, as per the sale deed dated 15.04.2000 - Exh.129 of village Khajuri Gundala, land involved was 2 acres (i.e. 8094 sq. mtrs.) and was sold for an amount of Rs.48,600/- (i.e. Rs.5.93/- per sq. mtr. rounding off to Rs.6/- per sq. mtr.) Year-wise details of the sale instances (of small plots as well as bigger parcels of land) are provided in the tabulated chart below so as to appreciate the market value during the subsequent years.
1. Registered sale deed of the NA land of a smaller plot:
Exh. no. Date Land Total price Price
(in sq. mtrs.) (in Rs.) (per sq. mtr.)
128 24.04.1997 332.76 23,700/- 71.22/-
Page 41 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
2. Registered sale deeds of larger chunks of agricultural lands:
Exh. Date Land Total price Price
nos. (in sq. mtrs.) (in Rs.) (per sq. mtr.)
58 31.01.1997 11129 20,000/- 1.80/-
59 26.03.1997 15075 50,000/- 3.32/-
123 23.09.1998 10188 75,000/- 7.36/-
129 15.04.2000 8094 48,600/- 6.00/-
133 19.06.2007 4048 80,000/- 19.76/-
138 26.07.2007 34398 3,50,000/- 10.17/-
139 26.07.2007 4047 80,000/- 19.76/-
130 18.03.2008 16188 1,00,000/- 6.30/-
146 14.05.2009 12141 2,00,000/- 16.47/-
124 02.07.2009 38141 4,75,000/- 12.45/-
134 07.08.2009 14569 1,50,000/- 10.29/-
131 12.03.2010 10117 1,00,000/- 9.88/-
140 12.03.2010 16188 3,07,000/- 18.96/-
125 11.11.2011 14164 4,00,000/- 28.24/-
142 18.05.2012 5073 4,31,000/- 84.95/-
3. Registered sale deeds of the smaller plots of the agricultural lands:
Exh. Date Land Total price Price
nos. (in sq. mtrs.) (in Rs.) (per sq. mtr.)
127 18.12.2004 333.24 50,000/- 150/-
137 17.04.2007 391.39 50,000/- 127.74/-
Page 42 of 58
Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025
undefined
136 26.12.2007 79.42 10,000/- 125.9/-
132 23.07.2009 83.61 15,000/- 179.40/-
126 01.03.2011 271.85 80,000/- 294.27/-
141 01.12.2011 180.99 38,000/- 210/-
135 30.06.2014 7993 3,00,000/- 37.53/-
31. The above referred details of the sale instances of villages Khajuri Gundala, Thanagalol and Charan Samadhiyala suggest that till the years 2012 - 2014, the market value of the land was too low. The learned judge was of the opinion that the sale instances produced since are after publication of section 4 notification, they cannot be considered and was of the further opinion that the sale instances relied upon indicate the transactions at much lower rates. The sale deeds Exhs.58, 59, 123, 128 were very much available on the record and could have been considered for deriving the market value. It is well settled that it is not necessary for the parties to examine the vendor and vendee to prove the certified copies of the sale deeds which are sought to be relied upon as exemplar for the purpose of determining the market value of the acquired lands.
32. There is no quarrel to the proposition that market value has to be determined on the basis of a bona fide transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller and if there is no evidence available of the bona fide transaction, then it should not be solely on surmises, conjunctures or pure guess. As discussed hereinabove and at the cost of repetition, it is required to be noted that in the year 1998 and the year 2000 the market value was hardly Rs.7.36 and Rs.6 respectively. While for the remaining years i.e. for the years 2007 till 2011 the market value was in the range of Page 43 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Rs.10/- to highest being Rs.28.24/-. Moreover, the sale deed of the year 2012 suggests that the market value was Rs.84.95/- per sq. mtr. Pertinently, as per the sale instances, the market value of the lands was too low of village Charan Samadhiyala and Khajuri Gundala, given the bleak prospects of development and development in near future.
33. If considered the observations of the learned judge made in paragraph 20 regarding the prospects of development of the lands in juxtaposition with the transactions during the years 2000 to 2015, leads to a conclusion that even in the year 2015, the market value was very meagre. Possibly owing to the lands being situated in a remote area of Rajkot District. The sale deeds of the subsequent years were placed on record and were not considered as they were subsequent to the date of section 4 notification. Ordinarily, sale transactions subsequent to the date of section 4 notification would be ignored and if considered, the market value is to be worked back by effecting permissible deductions, considering the development taken place of the surrounding areas resulting in a rise in price. However, if one considers the transactions of the sale, they are not showing the rising trend in the market value but, is consistent and is in the range; lowest being Rs.6/- per sq. mtr. in the year 2000 and highest being Rs.84.95/- per sq. mtr. in the year 2012 of larger chunks of lands and for smaller lands the lowest being Rs.71.22/- per sq. mtr. in the year 1997 and highest being Rs.294.27/- per sq. mtr. in the year 2011. The said evidence could have been considered as a guiding factor instead of observing that sale instances indicate the transaction at much lower rates. The rates being lower cannot be discarded; ultimately what is to be seen is the prevalent market value. However, the learned Judge, considered Exhs.34 to 36. Paragraphs 23, 24, 37 and 38 of the impugned judgment are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
Page 44 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined "23. On the other side, the learned A.G.P. for the opponents has relied upon the sale deed No.1436 dated 23/09/1998 of village Thana Galol which produced at Ex.123 and as per the said sale deed, the land has been sold at Rs.7.36 per sq.mts. As per sale deed No.1504 dated 07/07/2009 of village Thana Galol produced at Ex.124, land has been sold at Rs.12.45 per sq.mts; as per sale deed No.5224 dated 11/11/2011 of village Thana Galol, the land has been sold at Rs.28.24 per sq.mts. which is produced at Ex.125; as per sale deed No.1230 dated 01/03/2011 of village Thana Galol, the land has been sold at Rs.294.30 per sq.mts. which is produced at Ex.126; as per sale deed No.3757 dated 18/02/2004 of village Thana Galol, the land has been sold at Rs.150 per sq.mts which is produced at Ex.127; as per sale deed No.836 dated 24/04/1997 of village Khajuri Gundala, the land has been sold at Rs.71.25 which is produced at Ex.128, as per sale deed No.672 dated 15/04/2000 of village Khajuri Gundala, the land has been sold at Rs.6 per sq.mts. which is produced at Ex.129, as per sale deed No.984 dated 1/03/2008 of village Khajuri Gundala, the land has been sold at Rs.6.20 which is produced at Ex.130, as per sale deed No.1292 dated 12/03/2010 of village Khajuri Gundala, the land has been sold at 6.9.90 per sq.mts. which is produced at Ex.131, as per the sale deed No.1715 dated 19/06/2007, the land has been sold at Rs.180 per sq.mts. which is produced at Ex.132, as per sale deed No.1759 dated 19/06/2007 of village Khajuri Gundala, the land has been sold at Rs.19.75 per sq.mts. which is produced at Ex.133, as per sale deed No.1865 dated 08/07/2009 of village Khajuri Gundala, the land has been sold at Rs.10.30ps which is produced at Ex.134, as per the sale deed No.2617 dated 01/07/2014 of village Khajuri Gundala, the land has been sold at Rs.37.50 per sq.mts. which is produced at Ex.135, as per the sale deed No.3591 dated 26/12/2007 of village Khajuri Gundala, the land has been sold at Rs.126 per sq.mts. which is produced at Ex.136, as per sale deed No.1004 dated 17/04/2007 of village Charan Samadhiyala, the land has been sold at Rs.128 per sq.mts. which is produced at Ex.137, as per sale deed No.2253 dated 26/07/2007 of village Charan Samadhiyala, the land has been sold at Rs.10.20 per sq.mts. which is produced at Ex.138, as per sale deed No.2254 dated 26/07/2007 of village Charan Samadhiyala, the land has been sold at Rs.19.80 which is produced at Ex.139, as per sale deed No.1293 dated 15/03/2010 of village Charan Samadhiyala, the land has been sold at Rs.19 per sq.mts which is produced at Ex.140, as per sale deed No.5516 dated 01/12/2015 of village Charan Samadhiyala, the land has been sold at Rs.210 per sq.mts. which is produced at Ex.141, as per sale deed No.2117 dated 18/05/2012 of village Charan Samadhiyala, the land has been sold at Rs.84.95 per sq.mts. and as per sale deed No.1087 dated 14/05/2009 of village Khajuri Gundala, the land has been sold at Rs.16.50 per sq.mts.
24. Now, if we compare and analyze the sale instances produced by both the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the sale instances relied upon by the learned advocate for the opponent clearly appears to be of low rate. Not only that but the most of the sale instances appears to be executed after publication of notification under Sec.4 of the Act. Not only that, but he has also deducted and furthermore, the learned advocate for the opponent by relying upon the decision reported in 2012 1 SCC 390 in Civil Appeal No.1743/2006 and 8899 to 8901/2011 deducted 75% amount decide the price of agricultural land.Page 45 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined
37. I have carefully gone through all these authorities. Now, the sale instances produced by the applicants at Ex.34 to 36 are material and can be taken as the base to decide the compensation. The applicant has produced sale instances at Ex.34 which is of proposed non- agricultural land of village Thana Galol for plot No.2 admeasuring total 1098-54 sq.mts. bearing No.2107 of 1997. Wherein, the total land has been sold at Rs.5,25,600/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.400/- per square yard. Another sale deed No.2121 of 1997 produced at Ex.35 is of village Thana Galol for total land 2021.78 sq.mts. of plots No.3 & 4. Wherein, the total land has been sold at Rs.9,67,232/- i.e. Rs.400/- per square yard. One another sale deed No.2171 of 1997 of village Thana Galol wherein the total land admeasuring 1800-01 has been sold in Rs.7,56,830/- i.e. Rs.350/- per square yard. Now, it appears from the above sale instances that all these sale instances are of village Thana Galol and Thana Galol village is situated nearby and adjacent to the the outskirts of village Charan Samadhiyala. Moreover, comparing the sale instances produced by opponent, it appears that the opponent side has produced its most of the sale instances executed after publication of the notification under Sec.4 of the Act. While, the applicants have produced the above referred sale instances just before two years of the notification under Sec.4 of the Act. So, when the sale instances of just before two years of notification under Sec.4 is available with the court in that case it should be taken into consideration instead of the sale instances executed after the notifications under Sec.4 of the Act. Moreover, while deciding the compensation, the court has to also consider that in the present case not only a mere piece of land but the huge bulk of the lands of the applicants have been acquired by the government for the project. Moreover, in total there are 163 applicants in this case. Out of them, approximately 60 applicants have died and their legal heirs have been brought on record. The acquisition in the case has been made in the year 1999/2000. The applicants have lost their lands for the government project and thereby they have lost their agricultural land permanently which can come back to them. The agricultural land is always meant for the livelihood and maintenance of the farmers. Therefore, they must be compensated with reasonable amount. Moreover, the sale instances as discussed above are of the nearby villages and in absence of other other evidence, this court deem it fit to consider all these sale instances produced at Ex.34 to 36. As discussed above that Hon'ble Madras High Court has held in the decision reported in AIR 1972 MADRAS 170 that while deciding compensation when there are similar type of sale instances in that case highest sale instances should be considered to decide the compensation.
38. So, it appears from the sale instances produced at Ex.34 and 35 that the bulk of land had been sold at the rate of Rs.400 per square yard and the as per another sale deed produced at Ex.36, the land had been sold at Rs.350/- per square yard. But this court also considers the fact that there is marginally distance between the village Charan Samadhiyala and Thana Galol of which the sale instances are produced at Ex.34 to 36. Considering such situation of distance between this village and also considering some marginally difference of price between these two villages, instead of taking such prices of Rs.400/- and Rs.350/= per square yard for proposed non- agricultural land it means agricultural land, this court deem it fit to Page 46 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined consider the just and proper valuation of the agricultural land as Rs.280/-. Such sale instances appears to be sold at Rs.400/- and 350/- per square yard. As per units of land measurement 1 Square yard is equal to 0.8361. Now, if we convert the yard in to square meter, the figure would work out Rs.280x0.8361=234.108 which is rounded off as Rs.234. Now, it appears from the sale instances that they have been executed in the year, 1997, while the lands in question have been acquired in the year 1999. So, probably the applicants are entitled to get 10% increase per year. So, the figure is worked out as Rs.234+23.4+23.4=280.8 which is rounded off Rs.280. So, the applicants are entitled to get Rs.280 per square meter towards the compensation."
34. Bare perusal of the above referred paragraphs of the impugned judgment suggest that center to the discussion were Exhs.34 to 36 as, in the opinion of the learned judge, those pieces of evidence were material for the purpose of determining the compensation. The learned judge, was of the opinion that the lands were sold at Rs.400/- and Rs.350/- per sq. yard for NA land and hence, it would be fit to consider Rs.280/- as a just and reasonable market value for agricultural land. However, for reducing the market value there is no reasons assigned as to what weighed with the learned judge to determine Rs.280/- per sq. yard as a just and reasonable market value. What deduction and how the deduction was applied is not coming forth. There is no basis to substantiate the said conclusion arrived at by the learned judge which is an arbitrary exercise, tainted with perversity.
35. Exhs.34 to 36 were heavily relied upon and forms the basis of determination of the market value. While further elaborating it may be noted that, Exh.34, is the agreement to sell dated 18.12.1997 of plot no.2 admeasuring 1098.54 sq. mtrs. (without possession) of village Thanagalol and the price fixed, is at Rs.400/- per sq. yard and total consideration agreed was of Rs.5,25,600/- Similarly, Exh.35 is the agreement to sell dated 20.12.1997 of village Thanagalol for plot nos.3 and 4 admeasuring 998.39 and 1023.39 sq. mtrs. respectively, totally admeasuring 2021.78 sq. mtrs. The Page 47 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined consideration agreed was Rs.9,67,232/- (i.e. Rs.400/- per sq. yard). Exh.36, is again the agreement to sell without possession of village Thanagalol for plot no.5 and the land admeasuring, was 1800.01 sq. mtrs. The total consideration agreed was Rs.7,56,830/- (i.e. Rs.350/- per sq. yard) and the agreement is dated 26.12.1997. Discernibly, all the three transactions are the agreements to sell and are of the month of December 1997 and have not culminated into sale deeds. It is sought to be argued that as the lands were acquired, the agreements to sell could not be matured into sale transactions; however, the fact remains that the agreements to sell were of December 1997 whereas section 4 notifications were of the years 1998/1999 and therefore in the interregnum it could have culminated into the sale deeds. But not. Moreover, those agreements to sell were after the administrative approval accorded for the Survo irrigation project, information of which was known to all. It is also sought to be argued that the agreements to sell have provided a rough idea of the sale instances. Notably, an agreement to sell with or without possession is not the conveyance.
36. Pertinently, agreement for sale is a contract by which one party agrees or assures to convey the other party the property; however, it is not a conveyance inasmuch as, section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 envisages sale of immovable property only by deed of conveyance and hence, such agreements for sale could not have been considered for the purpose of determining the market value. Combined reading of paragraphs 22 and 37 of the impugned judgment suggest that the learned judge has treated agreements for sale as sale deeds and taken as sale instances. Moreover, the agreements to sell though are not amongst the same parties, contents thereof are almost identical, which raises a doubt of its genuineness. This is so because, in April 1997, the State Government has accorded administrative approval for Page 48 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined construction of "Survo Water Resources Project". It is also not in dispute that various efforts were put by the parties by executing documents quoting inflated rates. One of the instances is with reference to survey no.108 of village Thanagalol wherein, somewhere in the month of August 1997, application was filed seeking conversion of the land admeasuring A-07 07 gunthas for NA purpose, which, according to the claimants was granted by the Taluka Panchayat, Jetpur by passing an order dated 05.11.1997. Conversion was permitted on certain terms and conditions. In suo motu revision, the said order was cancelled by the learned Secretary, Revenue Department by passing a detailed order dated 31.01.2001 and it is observed that the attempts were put by the villagers seeking conversion, in view of the proposed acquisition for the purpose of project of Survo irrigation. There are strictures passed against the Taluka-cum-Mantri, Circle Inspector, Taluka Development Officer and Mamlatdar observing that they were responsible and have failed to maintain absolute integrity and their conduct was unbecoming of a government servant. It has also been observed that the order granting permission was not with a bona fide intention and was tainted with fraud, only with a view to seeing that the land owners are benefited with higher compensation in the proposed acquisition proceedings.
37. The order was subject matter of challenge before this Court in Special Civil Application no.5655 of 2001 and this Court, did not entertain the writ petition. Relevant extracts of the order dated 23.07.2001 reads thus:
"...
The NA permission has been cancelled mainly for reason that the Taluka Development officer did not make requisite inquiry before granting the NA permission i.e no inquiry/consultation was made with the revenue authority whether the land in question was required for the purpose of acquisition, no inquiry was made with the District Page 49 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined Industries Centre or Road & Building Department, Pollution Control Board, Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, District Health Officer etc. It further transpires that in the year 1996, the State Government had sanctioned 'Sarvo Irrigation Project' and the necessary information in respect of the lands which shall be submerged in the said Irrigation Project was obtained from the concerned Talati- cum-Mantri in the month of November, 1996. The land in question also was included in the area of submergence. Hence, it was known to the concerned authority that the land in question would be required for acquisition as part of the area of the submergence. Soon thereafter the application for NA permission was made in August 1997 and the same was granted on 6th November, 1997. The State Government has reasoned that the aforesaid application was made with view to obtaining higher compensation as and when the land is acquired and the same was granted by the Taluka Development Officer without making all the necessary inquiries with a view to defrauding the State government.
Mr. Bhatt has submitted that the inference of fraudulent intention drawn by the State Government is not well-founded. The petitioner being an illiterate agriculturist, would not have known about the Irrigation project or the area of submergence. Besides, the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act in respect of the land of the petitioner has been issued on 19th April, 2000. No ulterior intention, therefore, could have been attributed to the petitioner who had applied for NA permission years before the publication of the Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. Further, the power of suo-motu revision under section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code has not been exercised within the reasonable time i.e. it has been exercised after nearly 30 months of the date of the NA permission.
I see no substance in either of the contentions raised by the petitioner. The intention to defraud the Government is writ large. Even the authority concerned was aware of the up-coming Irrigation Project and the area of submergence. Moreover, without making due inquiries, the NA permission had been granted to the petitioner. No fault can be found with the adverse inference drawn by the State Government. The principle of 'reasonable time' can not be invoked in the case of an application made with an ulterior intention and the NA permission granted for extraneous consideration.
..."
38. This Court, found that the idea behind passing the order converting land into NA was with an intention to defraud the government. The Court, has further observed that the upcoming irrigation project and the area of the submergence was known to everyone including the authority. The attempt of filing the application seeking conversion was with a view to obtaining higher compensation as and when the land is acquired. The three agreements to sell executed in the month of December 1997 Page 50 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined coupled with the orders passed converting the land in the month of November 1997 very much directs to the intention of the parties and cannot be termed as bona fide transactions. If the transactions are tainted with any illegality or do not inspire any confidence, they ought not to be considered inasmuch as, the sale instances between the parties has to be bona fide transactions entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of acquisition and not the artificial transactions entered into only with a view to receiving higher compensation and deceiving the government.
39. In the case of Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution vs. B. Gunashekar (supra) in the context of Order VII Rule 11 application, it has been held and observed that the agreement for sale does not amount to conveyance as it is merely a contractual document by which one party namely the vendor, agrees or assures upon presumption to convey the property described in agreement to the other property. Though it is sought to be argued that the agreement to sell gives a rough idea of market value; however, such argument does not merit acceptance, inasmuch as, the market value is to be determined by producing sale instances which gives the correct market value and not only on the presumption or some amount agreed between the parties which is yet to be fructified or matured into final transaction. In the case on hand, the background suggests that the proposed acquisition was known and several attempts were put by the parties to enter into artificial transaction and the idea behind was to inflate the market value so as to receive more compensation.
40. At this stage, observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs. Jainul Islam (supra) are worth referring to. The Parishad was before the Apex Court and had Page 51 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined assailed the order of the High Court wherein the High Court had rejected the application of the Parishad seeking permission to file agreements to sell by way of additional evidence. Application was rejected on the ground that there was no material on record to suggest that agreements to sell had matured into sale transactions even after 8 years of their execution. The Apex Court, did not find anything wrong in the order of the High Court and observed that in absence of any material that the agreements to sell had matured into sale transactions would not be of much assistance for determination of the market value of the acquired land. Relevant paragraphs 33 to 35 are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
"33. As regards the determination of the market value of the lands in question, it may be stated that the said market value has to be determined with reference to 27-8-1983, the date of publication of the notification under Section 28 of the Adhiniyam, which has been equated with a notification under Section 4(1) of the LA Act. The area of the land acquired is more than 200 acres. It lies within the municipal limits of the city of Meerut and is adjacent to Indira Nagar, Shiv Shakti Nagar and Shiv Sagar Colony. The Land Acquisition Officer determined the market value at Rs 30 per sq. yard. The landowners sought reference claiming that the market value was Rs 150 per sq. yard. Seven exemplars were filed. The exemplar relied upon by the Parishad was a sale deed dated 31-3-1982 in respect of 16 biswas and 1 biswansi of land situated in Mohalla Indira Nagar which showed a price of about Rs 40 per sq. yard. The exemplars filed on behalf of the landowners were in respect of plots measuring from 22.22 sq. yards to 260 sq. yards of land and the price ranged from Rs 110 per sq. yard to Rs 150 per sq. yard. The civil court fixed the market value at Rs 150 per sq. yard and made a deduction of 10% for development. The Parishad in its appeals before the High Court assailed the said determination of the market value by the civil court. Some of the landowners filed cross-objections assailing the 10% deduction. In the High Court an application was submitted on behalf of the Parishad for permission to file certain agreements to sell by way of additional evidence. The said application was rejected by the High Court on the view that there was no material that the said agreements had matured into sale transactions even after eight years of their execution and that the said agreements were not of any assistance in the matter of determination of the market value. The High Court has also held that the exemplar submitted by the Parishad could not be accepted for the reason that therein it was categorically provided that the purchaser would take the risk of statutory prohibitions, if any, on the transfer and that the vendor would not be responsible and that for covering the risk, the Page 52 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined purchaser will normally demand reduction in the rate. Referring to the exemplars produced by the landowners the High Court observed that in respect of land covered in most of the exemplars no evidence of any deficiency had been brought to its notice. The High Court has pointed out that admittedly, the acquired land was not developed and it may only have the potentiality of development to be used as building sites and while facilities for drainage, electricity supply. water supply and pucca road are available in those developed areas, the land which is acquired measuring more than 200 acres does not have such advantages. The High Court was, however, of the view that as the acquired land is within the municipal limits and is surrounded by developed area with buildings and pucca roads and other facilities and has the advantage of road passing by the side, it has potentiality of developing though it cannot be treated to have similar advantages as the land in the developed areas. The High Court has also taken note of the fact that the entire acquired area was used for the purpose of agriculture even in 1983 when the surrounding areas had already developed. In the light of the aforesaid circumstances the High Court held that the rates available for land in developed area could not be adopted for determination of market value of the acquired land though they can be used for guidance to determine the market value by taking note of other circumstances as available on record. Referring to the exemplar dated 24-2-1983 relied upon by the landowners in respect of a plot measuring 260 sq. yards which reflected a rate of Rs 110 per sq. yard, the High Court has stated that the said land was below 4 to 5 ft. of the road level and that in the absence of any material as to any other disadvantage, this disadvantage of a piece of land could be given due weight to hold that such small strips of an area of 260 per sq. yards in the acquired land would also have to be valued at the rate of Rs 110 per sq. yard. The High Court, therefore, fixed the value of the acquired land at Rs 110 per sq. yard. As regards the development charges, the High Court held that normally when a big area is acquired for housing project and rate for small strip of land having equal advantage is available this Court normally provides for deduction of one-third from the rate and, therefore, it would not be unreasonable to deduct one-third from Rs 110 to arrive at the market value. The High Court has, therefore, fixed the market value of the acquired land at Rs 73 per sq. yard. The said determination by the High Court has been assailed by the learned counsel for the Parishad as well as for the landowners.
34. Shri Sanyal has submitted that the High Court was in error in rejecting the application for additional evidence filed by the appellants. On behalf of the landowners the learned counsel have urged that the High Court was in error in reducing the market value from Rs 150 per sq. yard to Rs 110 per sq. yard and in permitting the deduction of one-third. The learned counsel have placed reliance on the decisions in Kausalya Devi Bogra v. Land Acquisition Officer, Bhagwathula Samanna v. Special Tahsildar & Land Acquisition Officer and Meharban v. State of U.P.
35. We do not find any substance in the submissions urged on behalf of the Parishad regarding rejection of the application for adducing additional evidence by the High Court. The High Court, in our opinion, has rightly held that in the absence of any material that the Page 53 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined agreements for sale relied upon had matured into sale transactions not much assistance could be derived from them in the matter of determination of the market value of the acquired land."
41. It is by now well known that when there are several exemplars the highest of exemplars is to be taken provided that it is a bona fide transaction between the parties. The Apex Court in the case of Mehrawal Khewaji Trust vs. State of Punjab (supra) in paragraphs 14 to 17 has stated thus:
"14. As pointed out above, the Reference Court failed to take note of the highest exemplar, namely, the sale transaction under Ext. A- 61 dated 22-7-1977. In this regard, it is useful to refer the decision of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur v. Collector of Madras. In this case, this Court has held thus: (MLJ pp. 46-47) "... where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, that representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. In any case we see no reason why an average of two sale deeds should have been taken in this case."
15. In State of Punjab v. Hans Raj this Court has held that method of working out the "average price" paid under different sale transactions is not proper and that one should not have, ordinarily recourse to such method. This Court further held that the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the acquired lands are the real basis to determine the market value.
16. This Court in Anjani Molu Dessai v. State of God, after relying upon the earlier decisions of this Court in M. Vijayalakshmamma Rao Bahadur and Hans Raj held in para 20 as under: (Anjani Molu Desai case, SCC p. 715) "20. The legal position is that even where there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, usually the highest of the exemplars, which is a bona fide transaction, will be considered."
Again, in para 23, it was held that "the averaging of the prices under the two sale deeds was not justified".
17. It is clear that when there are several exemplars with reference to similar lands, it is the general rule that the highest of the exemplars, if it is satisfied that it is a bona fide transaction, has to be considered and accepted. When the land is being compulsorily taken away from a person, he is entitled to the highest value which similar land in the locality is shown to have fetched in a bona fide Page 54 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined transaction entered into between a willing purchaser and a willing seller near about the time of the acquisition. In our view, it seems to be only fair that where sale deeds pertaining to different transactions are relied on behalf of the Government, the transaction representing the highest value should be preferred to the rest unless there are strong circumstances justifying a different course. It is not desirable to take an average of various sale deeds placed before the authority/court for fixing fair compensation."
42. The Apex Court in the case of Manilal Shamalbhai Patel (Deceased) Through his legal heirs & Ors. vs. Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) (supra) in paragraphs 12 and 13 has observed thus:
"12. It is also a settled principle of law that large areas do not attract the same price as is offered for the small plots of lands. Therefore, some amount of deduction is also normally permissible on account of largeness in area. Thus, deduction of at least 10% has to be applied to determine the rate of compensation.
13. The determination of the prevalent market value of the acquired land is not an algebraic formula and that cannot be determined in a precise or an accurate manner. Some amount of guess work is always permissible. Therefore, a judge has to sit in an arm chair and without much taxing his mind has to determine the market value in a prudent manner."
43. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that when the learned judge was of the opinion that the lands do not have the prospects of development, reliance placed on the agreements to sell Exhs.34 to 36 was an erroneous exercise inasmuch as, in the agreements to sell the market value indicated is around Rs.400/- and Rs.350/- per sq. mtr. Notably, the area acquired is immensely vast, that is, close to 28 lac sq. mtrs. of villages Charan Samadhiyala and Khajuri Gundala compared to the sale instances of smaller plots admeasuring 1000 and odd sq. mtrs. Comparing the market value quoted in the agreements to sell Exhs.34 to 36 on one hand with the sale deeds produced Exhs.58, 59, 123, 128, 129, the market value determined, is substantially higher than the market value in currency. Sole reliance on the Exhs.34 to 36, was an error Page 55 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined committed by the learned Judge. At this stage, it may not be out of place to mention that in the appeal the matter was remanded vide order dated 10.08.2015 giving liberty to both the parties to adduce evidence and raise all contentions permissible under the law. Despite the liberty being granted, the applicants did not place on record any evidence and were satisfied with the evidence produced previously. Upon remand, the learned Judge has now determined the amount of Rs.402/- per sq. mtr., which in the opinion of this Court, is substantially higher than the prevalent market value.
44. It is well established that the determination of the prevalent market value of the acquired land is not an algebraic formula and that cannot be determined in a precise or an accurate manner. Some amount of guess work is always permissible. Therefore, a judge has to sit in an armchair and without much taxing his mind has to determine the market value in a prudent manner. Considering the observation of the learned judge that the lands acquired do not have the potential of development especially in paragraph 19 of the impugned judgment coupled with the sale instances produced in the tabulated form in paragraph 30 of this judgment, in the opinion of this Court, the market value of the agricultural lands in the year 1999 was meagre and in the range of approximately Rs.6/- to Rs.8/- and it was only in the year 2012 that the market value of a larger chunk of agricultural land was Rs.84.95 per sq. mtr. Definitely it could not have been Rs.402/- per sq. mtr. In view of the above discussion, the learned Judge, therefore, committed an error in determining a market value at the rate of Rs.402/- per sq. mtr., which is excessive and substantially higher. This Court, would have further ventured to determine the market value; however, owing to the discussion hereinafter, the exercise, would not be necessitated inasmuch, the State Government has Page 56 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined accepted the direction of not recovering 25% of the entire awarded amount deposited together with interest paid to the claimants.
45. Pertinently, vide judgment dated 07.04.2014, the Court below had determined the market value of the lands at the rate of Rs.350/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land in the case of 110 claimants and Rs.280/- per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land in the cases of 53 claimants. In the first round of litigation, pursuant to the direction of this Court, the State Government deposited 50% of the amount, i.e. Rs.1,77,39,55,165/- together with interest and cost and the claimants were allowed to withdraw 50% of the amount so deposited, i.e. Rs.88,69,77,623/-. Accordingly, the claimants have withdrawn 25% of the amount of compensation deposited at the rate of Rs.350/- per sq. mtr. and Rs.280/- per sq. mtr. respectively.
46. Vide judgment dated 10.08.2015, the Division Bench decided various groups together with First Appeal no. 649 of 2015 to First Appeal no. 811 of 2015. While disposing of the First Appeal, in paragraph 8, it is stated thus:
"8. It is clarified that 25% amount which has been paid to the original claimants will not be recovered from them. The balance amount along with interest which would be accumulated on the amount will remain with the Reference Court till final disposal of the Reference and whosoever succeeds will be allowed to withdraw the said amount. It is further clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter."
47. This Court, has clarified that 25% of the amount paid to the original claimants shall not be recovered from them. Having accepted the judgment and the direction not to recover 25% of the deposited amount together with interest, the market value approximately to the tune of Rs.87.5/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land and Rs.70/- per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land, virtually stood confirmed.
Page 57 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/399/2017 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 25/11/2025 undefined
48. The issue now remains of another 25% of the desposited amount. It may be noted that all the claimants have filed undertakings, at the time of withdrawal of remaining 25%, inter alia, stating on oath that in the event of any dispute, the claimants shall refund and re-deposit the amount so withdrawn. The claimants shall act accordingly, failing which, the State Government will be at liberty to take steps in accordance with law.
49. In view of the above discussion, the appeals are partly allowed. No order as to costs. Connected civil applications are disposed of accordingly. Registry is directed to remit the Record & Proceedings to the Reference Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) Sd/-
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) RAVI P. PATEL Page 58 of 58 Uploaded by RAVI PRAVINCHANDRA PATEL(HC01068) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:48:37 IST 2025