Gujarat High Court
Bhikhubhai Govindbhai vs State Of Gujarat on 8 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 265 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 266 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 267 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 268 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 269 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 270 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 271 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 272 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 273 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 274 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 277 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 278 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 279 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 280 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 281 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 282 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 283 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 284 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 285 of 2012
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 286 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=============================================
Page 1 of 27
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025
undefined
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=============================================
BHIKHUBHAI GOVINDBHAI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
VMP LEGAL(7210) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 08/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. There are two batch of appeals out of which First Appeal Nos.265 of 2012 to 274 of 2012 is directed against the common judgment and award dated 27.09.2011 passed by the learned 4 th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.185 of 2005, 178 of 2005 to 189 of 2005, 192 of 2005, 195 of 2005, 198 of 2005, 201 of 2005, 204 of 2005 and 205 of 2005 whereby the References were allowed and the respondents were held liable to pay additional amount of compensation to the original claimants along with interest and costs. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") in respect of the irrigated agricultural lands under acquisition situated at Village: Dhanfulia, Taluka: Vanthli, District:
Junagadh was published on 09.09.1999 for the purpose of Construction of Vadla Dhanfulia Sonardi Road Project and notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 04.10.2001 and, thereafter, the notice under Section 9 of the Act issued to the claimants and the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 01.04.2002 under Section 11 of the Act whereby awarded Rs.6.25 per square meters for irrigated land (Piyat) and Rs.5/- per square meters for non-irrigated land (Baret).
Page 2 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined 1.1 The another batch of appeals being First Appeal Nos.277 of 2012 to
286 of 2012 is directed against the common judgment and award dated 27.09.2011 passed by the learned 4 th Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh, (hereinafter referred to as the "Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.170 of 2005 to 176 of 2005, 178 of 2005, 183 of 2005 and 184 of 2005 whereby the References were allowed and the respondents were held liable to pay additional amount of compensation to the original claimants along with interest and costs. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") in respect of the irrigated agricultural lands under acquisition situated at Village: Dhanfulia, Taluka:
Vanthli, District: Junagadh was published on 09.09.1999 for the purpose of Construction of Vadla Dhanfulia Sonardi Road Project and notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 06.01.2000 and, thereafter, the notice under Section 9 of the Act issued to the claimants and the Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award on 01.04.2002 under Section 11 of the Act whereby awarded Rs.6.25 per square meters for irrigated land (Piyat) and Rs.5/- per square meters for non-irrigated land (Baret).
2. This batch of appeals, is being decided by this common judgment and order.
3. Brief facts of the present case are that the irrigated agricultural land (Piyat) of the respective claimants were acquired by the respondent - State Authorities for the purpose of constructing of Vadla Dhanfulia Junagadh Road situated at Village: Dhanfulia, Taluka: Vanthli, District: Junagadh. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 09.09.1999 and Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 06.01.2000 in second batch of appeals and 04.10.2001 in first batch of appeals respectively. The Notice under Section 9 of the said Act was issued to the claimants.Page 3 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined 3.1 It is the case of the appellants that an award dated 01.04.2002 came to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in Land Acquisition Case No.22 of 1999 whereby the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.6.25/- per square meters for irrigated land (Piyat) and Rs.5/- per square meter for irrigated land (Baret) in first batch of appeals.
3.2 It is the case of the appellants that an award dated 16.03.2002 came to be passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer in Land Acquisition Case No.22 of 1999 whereby the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.6.25/- per square meters for irrigated land (Piyat) and Rs.5/- per square meter for irrigated land (Baret) in second batch of appeals.
3.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the appellants filed an application before the Collector, inter alia seeking to make a Reference under Section 18 of the Act to the District Court and, therefore, the same came to be made before the District Court for determining the correct market value of the land acquired and to pay the compensation accordingly.
3.4 It is the case of the appellants that along with the lands of the appellants, the lands of the other owners situated within the same Village were also acquired. The respective owners of the said land also made an Application to make a Reference which was referred by the Collector to the District Court for determination of Market Value. The Land Reference Cases of the present appellants along with the Land Reference Cases of other owners were consolidated and were adjudicated and heard together. Common evidence was led by the parties which was recorded in Land Reference Case No. 185 of 2005 (main) in first batch of appeals and Land Reference Case No. 170 of 2005 (main) in second batch of appeals.
3.5 It is the case of the appellants that the agricultural activity done with scientific method and were getting maximum production of crops and on Page 4 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined the basis of the yield capitalization method, the market value of the land can be derived at Rs.85/- per square meter. Further, in respect of the very same village, the appellants proved a sale deed dated 30.06.1997 registered before the Sub Registrar at Sr. No. 313 whereby one Mr. Durlabh Chaganbhai purchased the land admeasuring Acre 439 Gunthas for a consideration of Rs.2,67,000/- which comes to Rs.13.28 per square meter. The said sale deed was proved and was given Exhibit Number i.e. Exhibit 30 and 57 in respective appeals. The difference of period between the said sale deed dated 30.06.1997 and the Notification dated 09.09.1999 was about two years and on considering the price rise at 10% per year, the market value comes to Rs.16.20 paise per square meter.
3.6 In support of their claims, the appellants / claimants have produced documentary as well as oral evidence in the reference cases. In first batch of appeals, the claimants have examined witnesses i.e. Arjanbhai Kalabhai at Exhibit 28, Durlabhji Chhaganbhai at Exhibit 26, and Virambhai Ranmalbhai Naghera at Exhibit 33. The claimants have also produced documentary evidence at Exhibit 14, 15, 34 and 30. The respondents have examined one witness namely Jivanlal Thakarshi Vachhani at Exhibit 96 and also produced relevant documentary evidence at Exhibit 97, 98 to 120, 121 to 146, 147 to 175. In another batch of appeals, the claimants have examined witnesses i.e. Durlabhji Chhaganbhai at Exhibit 56, and Virambhai Ranmalbhai Naghera at Exhibit 60. The claimants have also produced documentary evidence at Exhibit 22 to 53, 57, 61 to 110.
3.7 The lands comprising to the Reference Cases arising out of first batch of appeals and the nature of the lands was mentioned in para - 4 of the judgment and award of the Reference Court, which reads thus:-
Ref.Case No. Survey No. H.R. Sq.Mtr Type of Lands 185/05 116 paiki 104/1 paiki 0-46-22 Baret 187/05 107/4 0-06-80 Baret Page 5 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined 188/05 62 paiki 0-03-74 Baret 189/05 45/1 paiki 0-10-71 Baret 190/05 107/1 paiki 0-12-78 Baret 192/05 105 0-29-66 Piyat 195/05 25/7 0-04-20 Baret 198/05 60 paiki 0-07-13 Baret 201/05 22 0-19-57 Baret 61 204/05 43 paiki 0-11-31 Baret 205/05 42 0-33-85 Baret 3.8 The lands comprising to the Reference Cases arising out of second batch of appeals and the nature of the lands was mentioned in para - 4 of the judgment and award of the Reference Court, which reads thus:-
Ref.Case No. Survey No. H.R. Sq.Mtr Type of Lands 170/05 67 0-04-40 Jirayat 171/05 47/3 0-15-60 Jirayat 172/05 45/1 0-09-35 Jirayat 173/05 45/2, 66 0-02-34 Jirayat 0-03-65 174/05 49 0-13-51 Jirayat 175/05 49 paiki 0-05-18 Jirayat 176/05 68 0-03-64 Jirayat 178/05 46/2, 47/1 paiki 0-30-23 Jirayat 0-15-52 183/05 20/1 0-09-36 Piyat 184/05 64/1 0-10-08 Jirayat 3.9 The appellants have also filed written arguments / submissions at Exhibit 177 and the respondents have filed their written arguments at Exhibit 178 before the Reference Court. That the appellants / claimants have prayed for compensation at Rs.500/- per Are along with the statutory Page 6 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined benefits including solatium and interest as provided under Section 23(1)(a) and 23(2) of the Act. After considering the documentary as well as oral evidence, the Reference Court awarded Rs.200/- per Are for Non-irrigated land and Rs.225/- per Are for Irrigated land in addition to the compensation awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award, the appellants have come up with their respective appeals.
5. To prove the just, fair and reasonable market value of their acquired lands, the appellants have led common evidence separately in all the reference cases. The claimants have examined witness i.e. Durlabhbhai Chhagan at Exhibit 29, who purchased agriculture land at Village:
Dhanfulia, Taluka: Vanthli, District: Junagadh and also produced document at Exhibit 30 wherein the agricultural land (irrigated) admeasuring H - Are - 01 - square meters 33 to the tune of Rs.2,67,000/- which comes to Rs.1328/- per Are meaning thereby that the sale deed was executed on 30.06.1997 and on that day, the agricultural land was sold at the rate of Rs.1328 per Are. Notification under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 09.09.1999 after almost two years and, therefore, considering 10% rise per year as per the settled principle of law, the appellants are entitled to get Rs.1652/- per Are if 20% is added in Rs.1328/- (Rs.1328 X 20% = Rs.324/-) and, therefore, they have proved their case by leading cogent and material evidence. The appellants were also taking three crops in a year for which they have examined one witness namely Arjan Dahyabhai at Exhibit 26 and also the document at Exhibit 15. For three crops, the annual income at Rs.1700/- is to be considered, after deducting 50% of the expenses, the net income comes to Rs.850/- and taking into account at least a factor of 10 in it, the market value of Rs.8500/- is to be the price of the land per Are. The respondents have considered the fact that in the 7-12 abstracts of the claimants, it was not shown that three crops cultivated by all the claimants, for which, they have produced 7-12 abstract of the claimants on record. In Page 7 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined the 7-12 abstracts, it was mentioned that three crops as mentioned was only to be cultivated during the monsoon and there was no evidence that the claimants having facility for irrigation though it was mentioned in 7-12 abstracts and the many persons are having well in their agricultural lands.
However, it was mentioned that there was no irrigation facility and the Special Land Acquisition Officer after considering 26 sale instance passing the award under Section 11 of the Act which is just and proper. In para - 9, the Reference Court has considered all the relevant aspects relating to irrigation facility which was mentioned in revenue record was on record, but has not properly appreciated in its true and proper perspective and discarded only on the ground that the witnesses have not stated that the appellants having proper irrigation facility. In fact, though the witness Durlabhbhai was cross-examined in detailed wherein he has denied the suggestions put forward by the otherside which relates to the price in which he purchased the land is on higher side shown in the sale deed. The witness has also stated that the lands acquired were abating the road as the road was passing in the middle of the agricultural lands. Even this witness has also denied the suggestion that the land was at a distance of five and half kilometers from the village. The witness has also reiterated that the price which is mentioned by him in the chief-examination is the price prevailing in that area at the relevant time i.e. in 1997 and this witness denied the fact that the seller undue haste sold the land on through away price to Durlabhbhai and purchased by him the land in through away price. He has denied the other suggestion made by the otherside and he reiterated said fact in his evidence.
6. The other witness namely Virambhai Ranmalbhai Naghera examined, who was working as revenue secretary of Village: Dhanfulia. That the witness was transferred in 2002 and he brought the record from 1995 to 2000 and from the record, he has produced the revenue record of all the claimants. It stated that the record which was collected by the respondents was not in their handwriting but it was of the earlier Talati and he was Page 8 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined unable to give answer to that effect. In fact, the witness has supported the case of the claimants. One independent witness Bhagwanjibhai serving in APMC, Junagadh, who has produced the details of agriculture produce, purchased by the APMC and he confirmed such details which he has produced before the Court is based upon the documentary evidence and as per the said certificate, the income of the agriculturists is required to be considered. He has admitted that he has not visited the land prior to the date of passing of the award under Section 11 of the Act. He has also admitted that he has not collected last five years record. He has denied the fact that there was no irrigation facility. Based on the evidence, the Reference Court, by its impugned judgment and award dated 27.09.2011, awarded additional compensation at the rate of Rs.200/- per Are. for Non- irrigated land and Rs.225/- per Are for Irrigated land with all other statutory benefits like interest, solatium, etc. as per Sections 23, 23(1-A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act.
5. Heard Mr.Vimal Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellants - claimants and Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent - State Authorities at length and perused the material placed on record.
6. Mr.Patel, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is contrary to the material and evidence on record. He has submitted that the respective lands was acquired on 09.09.1999 by issuing Notification and in respect of the same village, a sale instance dated 30.06.1997 at Exhibit 57 was proved whereby the land was sold at Rs.13.28 per square meter and considering rise at 10% per year, it comes to Rs.16.20/- (13.28 + 2.92) per square meter and hence, the market value as on 09.09.1999 can be determined at Rs.16.20/- per square meter, despite of the fact that the trial Court only awarded Rs.7.00 paise per square meter considering the same to be non-
Page 9 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
irrigated land despite the fact that it is irrigated land thereby disallowing Rs.9.20 per square meter. He has submitted that the trial Court on the basis of the yield method ought to have held that the market value of the land can be determined at Rs.85/- per square meter in view of the evidence led by the claimants whereby the nature of the crops taken, the quantity of yield and the rate of the crop is proved. He has submitted that after deducting cultivation expenses at 50%, the income comes to Rs.8.50 per square meter, thereafter, applying multiplier of 10 as per the settled principles of law, it would come to Rs.85/- per square meter (8.50 X 10) and on the basis of the yield method, the market value of the land comes to Rs.85/- per square meter despite which the trial Court granted compensation at Rs.8.75/- per square meter for irrigated land (Piyat) and Rs.7/- for non-irrigated land (Baret). He has submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by the trial Court is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in choosing the method of determining the market value, when evidence in respect of the yield compensation method as well as sale instance is available on record.
6.1 Mr.Patel, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants/claimants have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the value of their lands i.e. sale instance of Village: Dhanfulia at Exhibit 30 and also examined the purchase of the said agricultural land and has proved the net agriculture income at Rs.850/- per Are from the acquired lands and the sale deed was also proved and all the suggestions put forward by the respondents were denied by the said witness. It is submitted that either of the evidence produced by the appellants is considered, the value of their acquired lands in any case shall not be less than Rs.1250/- per Are for non-irrigated land and Rs.1650/- per Are for irrigated land. Mr.Patel, learned counsel has further submitted that the respondents have not produced any other relevant evidence before the trial Court except the revenue record of the claimants with a view to show that in the revenue record, it was not mentioned that the claimants' were taking three crops in Page 10 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined a year, however, the trial Court has not considered this aspect in its true and proper perspective while awarding additional compensation to the tune of Rs.200/- per Are for non-irrigated land and Rs.250/- per Are for irrigated land. Mr.Patel, learned counsel has submitted that instead of Rs.7.25 per square meter for irrigated land and Rs.7/- per square meter for non-irrigated land, the appellants are entitled for Rs.85/- per square meters. He has submitted that on the basis of the yield method, the market value of the lands has determined which reads thus:-
"The yearly income of three season comes to Rs.17000/- per Hector i.e. Rs.1700/- per Are i.e. Rs. 17/- per square meters. After deducting cultivation expenses at 50%, the income comes to Rs.8.50 paise per square meters. Applying the multiplier of 10, it would come to Rs.85/- per square meters (8.50 x 10). Therefore, even as per the yield method the market value of the land comes to Rs.85/- per square meters."
6.2 In support of his submissions, Mr.Patel, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions:-
(1) Raval Maneklal Motiram Vs. State of Gujarat, AIR 1991 SC 137 :
1991 (1) GLR 212;
(2) State of Gujarat Vs. Administrative of Lalji Maharaj, Harisinh Ramsinh Raj, 1999 (2) GLH 1033;
(3) State of Gujarat through Deputy Collector Vs. Aher Jagmal Lakhman Jodwa, 2011 JX (Guj) 591;
(4) Executive Engineer (Construction) Vs. Shantaben W/o. Naginbhai Patel, 2024 JX (Guj) 78;
6.3 Mr.Patel, learned counsel has submitted that the appeals deserve to be allowed and the judgment and award deserves to be modified to the extent.
7. Per contra, Ms.Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Page 11 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined respondents has submitted that the Reference Court has not committed any error of law and facts in passing the judgment and award and in awarding the compensation. She has submitted that the judgment and award is just and proper and hence no interference is required to be called for and the same may be confirmed.
7.1 Ms.Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents has submitted that an existence of a well in the acquired lands does not prove that the lands were irrigated and there is no evidence which suggests that the well was used for irrigation purposes. She has submitted that no any proof has been produced by the claimants to show that any machine was used to extract the water from the well for irrigation purposes and in absence of such evidence, the claimants' assertion that the land was irrigated. She has submitted that the Reference Court has rightly considered the lands of the claimants as non-irrigated lands, based on the evidence on record and there is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Reference Court. She has submitted that the claimants have made an averment that they were using nearby pond's water for farming purposes, which suggests that the lands were not dependent on the well for irrigation. She has submitted that the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and the same is just and proper and there is no any illegality and infirmity in the judgment and award.
7.1 Ms.Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents has submitted that as per the evidence of the appellants'/claimants' witness, the base price determined by the respondents on the basis of the sale instance which he has referred to before declaring the award under Section 11 of the Act and after considering the sale instance, after applying necessary deduction on the count of irrigation and non-irrigation lands and as the lands being of gamtal, the value of the acquired lands would be less than Rs. Rs.625/- per Are for irrigated land and Rs.500/- per Are and thus, it Page 12 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined has awarded Rs.650/- per Are for irrigated land and Rs.500/- per Are for non-irrigated land. In support of her submissions, Ms.Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Karnataka Housing Board Vs. Land Acquisition Officer, Gadag reported in AIR 2011 SC
781. She has submitted that the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants are not applicable to the facts of the present case and urged that the appeals being meritless deserve to be dismissed.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Raval Maneklal Motiram (supra) which relates to the sale instances wherein irrigated land and non-irrigated land was involved.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Lalji Maharaj, Harisinh Ramsinh Raj (supra). The relevant head note (b) and (c) reads thus:-
"(b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - S. 4(1) - notification -
determination of appropriate compensation rates following land acquisition for Narmada Project - claimants sought higher compensation than awarded by Land Acquisition Officer based on market value and cultivation yield - Held that the Reference Court's reliance on oral evidence without documentary support was justified due to lack of sale deeds; however, it emphasized that deductions should reflect realistic agricultural costs in the region - ultimately affirming that while some aspects of the Reference Court's decision were upheld, adjustments were necessary regarding multiplier application to ensure fair compensation. (Paras 2, 6)
(c) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - S. 23(1) - market value - assessment of market value for acquired land under various references filed by claimants seeking enhanced compensation rates - Held that while the Reference Court's findings were largely sound in determining market value based on local conditions and yield estimates, it must adhere to established legal standards regarding multipliers as per precedent cases - thus necessitating a recalibration of awarded amounts to align with judicial guidelines. (Paras 7)"
10. In the case of Aher Jagmal Lakhman Jodwa (supra) relied upon by Page 13 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined the learned counsel for the appellant, this Court has observed that the price of the land is required to be considered on yield method prevalent at the time of acquisition of the land.
11. In the case of Shantaben W/o. Naginbhai Patel (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held and observed in para - 5 and 6 as under:-
"5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the awards of the Reference Court, and having also perused the award in LAR Case No.361 of 1988 dated 09.02.2012, perusal of the awards in comparison would indicate that for the lands in the same vicinity, which were acquired by the award Exh.53 for constructing an entrance road, the lands in question and the comparable instance was considered by the Reference Court and in the opinion of this Court, rightly so.
5.1 However, when the findings of the Reference Court in the impugned award is considered, the Reference Court while relying on a decision in the case of Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bharuch v. Motibhai Mohanbhai reported in 1997 (2) GLH 773, considering the similar land acquired in the adjoining village, increased the amount by 10% at a flat rate in light of the guidelines of the decision. The reference Court came to the conclusion that though the difference between the two notifications was 10 years 11 months and 16 days, the increase would be to an amount of Rs.220.74 paisa. However, since the claimants had demanded Rs.200.77 per square meter, the Court cannot grant such amount grater than the one demanded by the claimants and therefore the reference court fixed the market value of the acquired land of Rs.200.77 as demanded by the claimants.
6. At this stage, when we may peruse the decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr.Viral Dave in the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. (supra), what is evident from reading the judgement is that, though the Supreme Court has held that it is unsafe to consider an award of a sale instance of a neighboring lands where the gap is of large number of years and therefore, it is not possible to award an enhanced amount of 10% and it would be safe to give an amount of 5% to 7.5%, perusal of that decision would indicate that before the Supreme Court, it was a case where as comparable to the present case, the lands in Ankleshwar which are a matter of reference had much more facilities and therefore, enhancement at the rate of 10% could not be faulted. Even otherwise, we would agree with Page 14 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined the submission of the learned counsel for the original claimants/ cross-objectors that the observations of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. (supra) was in background of the fact that in the rural areas there is a less prospect of development and as compared to urban and semi-urban areas where the development is faster the escalation in market price is much higher. It was on this account that the Supreme Court thought it fit that it would be safe to enhance the amount to about 5% to 7.5% per annum. As far as the present case on hand is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the lands in question are in semi urban area and when we consider the decision of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr.Viral Dave, we also need to consider the fact that the decision in the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. (supra) has also been considered in the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. In the case of Sardar Jogendra Singh (dead) by LRS. (supra), in para 5 while considering the decision in case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. (supra), the Supreme Court has considered it to be safe to award a quantum increase of 10% per annum. Paras 5 and 6 of the decision read as under:
5. The appellant challenged the said award of the Reference Court before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeals holding that the determination of the market value by the Reference Court did not call for interference.
6. The appellant urged the following two contentions in support of the appeals against the said judgment:
(i) Exhibit 15 and Exhibit 16 did not relate to the Ijapura village, but related to other villages, namely neighbouring Santhal and far away Chalsana (at a distance of 4 kms). The market value of lands in those villages cannot furnish the basis for determining the market value in regard to the acquired lands situated at Ijapura.
(ii) Even if Exhibit 15 and 16 could validly be the basis for determining the market value of lands at Ijapura, the Reference Court and High Court committed three errors in calculating the increase: (a) in applying an annual increase at a high rate of 10% per annum; (b) in calculating the annual increase cumulatively instead of at a flat rate; and (c) in calculating the increase for a period of six and half years instead of for five years. The appellant submitted that even if Exhibit 15 was to be the basis, having regard to the date of relied-on acquisition under Exhibit 15 (6.1.1987) and date of present acquisition of the Ijapura lands (15.9.1992), the increase ought to have been calculated for only five years; that the percentage of increase should not have been more than a flat rate of 5% per annum;
that therefore, the increase ought to have been only Rs. 2.50 for 5 years and the market value of Santhal lands in 1992 would Page 15 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined have been Rs. 12.50 per sq.m. and not Rs. 19.10; and that if Rs. 2.00 was deducted for the distance factor, as was done by the Reference Court, the market price would be only Rs. 10.50 per sq.m. and not Rs. 17.10 per sq.m. Whether reliance on Exhibits 15 and 16 erroneous-
6.1 Even in the case of Harisinh Laxmansinh Vaghela & 1 (supra), a Division Bench of this Court while considering the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. (supra) has in paras 8 to 11 held as under:
8. The contention of appellant is that even if Exhibit P15 should be the basis, in the absence of any specific evidence regarding increase in prices between 1987 and 1992, the annual increase could not be assumed to be 10% per year.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submitted that the rate of escalation in market value at the relevant time was in the range of 10% to 15% per annum. He relied on the decisions of this Court in Ranjit Singh V/s. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1992 4 SCC 659, and Land Acquisition Officer and Revenue Divisional Officer V/s. Ramanjulu & Ors., 2005 9 SCC 594 wherein this Court had accepted an escalation of ten per cent per annum, and the decision in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Sahaswom V/s. Bipin Kumar, 2004 2 SCC 283 where this Court had accepted an escalation of 15% per annum. He, therefore, submitted that escalation at the rate of 10 per cent adopted by the Reference Court and approved by the High Court is a reasonable and correct standard to be applied.
10. We have examined the facts of the three decisions relied on by the respondents. They all related to acquisitions of lands in urban or semi-urban areas. Ranjit Singh related to acquisition for development of Sector 41 of Chandigarh, Ramanjulu related to acquisition of the third phase of an existing and established industrial estate in an urban area. Bipin Kumar related to an acquisition of lands adjoining Badaun-Delhi Highway in an semi-
urban area where building construction activity was going on all around the acquired lands.
11. Primarily, the increase in land prices depends on four factors
- situation of the land, nature of development in surrounding area, availability of land for development in the area, and the demand for land in the area. In rural areas unless there is any prospect of development in the vicinity, increase in prices would be slow, steady and gradual, without any sudden spurts or jumps. On the other hand, in urban or semiurban areas, where the development is faster, where the demand for land is high and where there is construction activity all around, the escalation in market price is at a much higher rate, as compared Page 16 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined to rural areas. In some pockets in big cities, due to rapid development and high demand for land, the escalations in prices have touched even 30% to 50% or more per year, during the nineties. On the other extreme, in remote rural areas where there was no chance of any development and hardly any buyers, the prices stagnated for years or rose marginally at a nominal rate of 1% or 2% per annum. There is thus a significant difference in increases in market value of lands in urban/semi- urban areas and increases in market value of lands in the rural areas. Therefore if the increase in market value in urban/semi- urban areas is about 10% to 15% per annum, the corresponding increases in rural areas would at best be only around half of it, that is about 5% to 7.5% per annum. This rule of thumb refers to the general trend in the nineties, to be adopted in the absence of clear and specific evidence relating to increase in prices. Where there are special reasons for applying a higher rate of increase, or any specific evidence relating to the actual increase in prices, then the increase to be applied would depend upon the same.
The Court in the facts of that case also approved 10% increase in the award of compensation.
6.2 In the case of Ramesh Kumar (supra) reiterating the decision in the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (supra) the Supreme Court in para 6.3 to 6.5 has held as under:
6.3 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the land owners that while considering the annual increase at the rate of 12%, the High Court ought to have applied the cumulative rate and reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (Supra) and in the case of Ashok Kumar (Supra) are concerned, it is true that as held by this Court in aforesaid two decisions increase in the market value should be at a cumulative rate and not at a flat rate. In the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (Supra) in paragraph 18, it is specifically observed and held that when market value is sought to be ascertained with reference to transactions which took place before the acquisition, the law adopted is to collect the year to year increase. It is further observed and held that as the percentage of increase is always with reference to the previous year's market value, the appropriate method is to adopt the increase cumulatively and not applying a flat rate. However, at the same time it is also observed and held in the said decision that it is reasonably safe to determine the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the approved market value of nearby lands in the previous years, when relied on sale transactions/acquisitions precede the subject acquisition by only a few years, i.e., upto 45 years. It is further observed in the said decision in para 15 that beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. In para 15 it is observed and held Page 17 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined as under:
"Normally, recourse is taken to the mode of determining the market value by providing appropriate escalation over the proved market value of nearby lands in previous years (as evidenced by sale transactions or acquisition), where there is no evidence of any contemporaneous sale transactions or acquisitions of comparable lands in the neighbourhood. The said method is reasonably safe where the reliedonsale transactions/acquisitions precedes the subject acquisition by only a few years, that is upto four to five years. Beyond that it may be unsafe, even if it relates to a neighbouring land. What may be a reliable standard if the gap is only a few years, may become unsafe and unreliable standard where the gap is larger. For example, for determining the market value of a land acquired in 1992, adopting the annual increase method with reference to a sale or acquisition in 1970 or 1980 may have many pitfalls. This is because, over the course of years, the `rate' of annual increase may itself undergo drastic change apart from the likelihood of occurrence of varying periods of stagnation in prices or sudden spurts in prices affecting the very standard of increase. In the present case both, the Reference Court as well as the High Court, have determined the value of the land considering the Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979 which is more than 9 years before the notification of the acquisition. Therefore, considering the observations made by this Court in para 15 in the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (Supra) reproduced hereinabove and considering the fact that time gap between the sale deed relied upon and the date of notification of acquisition is more than 9 years, the courts below ought to have been very cautious in relying upon the Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979. Be that it may and assuming that the Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979 was the best evidence available to determine the value of land acquired in that case also taking annual increase at the rate of 12% is not justified. We are of the opinion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case the annual increase/escalation ought to have been at the rate of 10% maximum. Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that State of Punjab suffered due to militancy from 1979 onwards till 1992 and because of that the prices would have crashed. Therefore, to grant the escalation/price rise at the rate of 12% would not be justified at all. After considering the case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel (Supra), it is observed and held by this Court in the case of Lal Chand (Supra) that even if the transaction is 2 to 3 years prior to the acquisition, the Court should, before adopting a standard escalation satisfy itself that there were no adverse circumstances. It is further observed and held that the question is therefore, necessary before increasing the price with reference to the old transactions. Therefore, assuming that the appellants are right in submitting that the increase in land value should have been adopted on cumulative basis, in the peculiar Page 18 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined facts and circumstances of the case noted hereinabove, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court.
6.4 Now so far as the submission on behalf of the appellants of not taking into consideration the other sale deeds, it is required to be noted that those sale deeds are with respect to small portions of land and thereafter rightly discarded.
6.5 Now so far as the deduction at the rate of 15% towards the development charges, it also does not call for any interference of this Court considering the fact that the land in question at the relevant time was an agricultural land. However, taking into consideration the fact that the sale instance dated 24.07.1979 relied upon was a quite big chunk of land and the location of the acquired land and the land was acquired for spinning mill, the High Court has rightly adopted 15% cut, which in the facts and circumstances of the case is not required to be interfered with.
6.3 Reading the aforesaid decisions indicate that though the gap between the award which was relied upon was an instance of sale which was 9 years, the Court was of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the annual increase ought to have been at the rate of 10% of the maximum.
6.4 Having considered therefore the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and as per the statement made in the cross-objections and to which Mr.Sheth has agreed to, the claimants though had claimed an enhanced amount of Rs.300/- by way of the submission, their submission was that even the reference Court admitted that the claimants were entitled to an amount of Rs.220.74 per square meter instead of Rs.200.77 per square meter and therefore, if the cross-objections were allowed and the claimants were held entitled to Rs.220.74 per square meter as an additional amount of compensation instead of Rs.200.77 per square meters, their cross-objections would be considered in light of such fact, as claimants had only restricted their claim to Rs.220.74 as additional amount of compensation based on which the Court fees had been paid.
6.5 What is therefore apparent is that the perusal of the award of the Reference Court would indicate that it was erroneous on the part of the Reference Court to restrict the claim to an additional amount of Rs.200.77 per square meters though having admitted that the claimants were entitled to an additional amount of Rs.220.74 per square meters and only because the claim was restricted to that amount, the Land Reference Court committed an error in not enhancing the amount to the additional claim of Rs.220.74 per square meters.
Page 19 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
6.6 In light of the judgements of this Court as well as that of the Supreme Court interpreting the decision in case of Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. (supra) giving a statement of law that it will not be erroneous even if the gap is large to award a 10% flat increase in the compensation, we dismiss the First appeals of the acquiring body, and partly allow the crossobjections of the original claimants and hold that the original claimants are entitled to Rs.220.74 per square meter instead of Rs.200.77 per square meter awarded by the Reference court and accordingly in addition to the awarded amount of Rs.200.77 per square meter, the claimants are entitled to an additional amount of Rs.20/- per square meter over and above the amount awarded by the Reference Court and the Land Acquisition Officer. Accordingly, the judgement and order passed by the Reference Court is modified and it is held that the present claimants/cross-objectors are entitled to Rs.220.74 per square meter instead of Rs.200.77 per square meter on the basis of the evidence led before the Reference Court and also on the basis of the decisions relied thereupon. The rest of the award on the amount of interest and statutory benefits shall remain the same."
12. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only questions involve in these appeals require for consideration is whether the Reference Court has committed any error in awarding an additional compensation at the rate of Rs.225/- per Are for irrigated land and Rs.200/- per Are for non-irrigated land and whether the claimants are entitled for additional compensation as prayed for in respective appeals based on the yields method or last sale instance which was produced on record and proved.
13. For the purpose of determining and awarding appropriate compensation, the Appellate Court is expected to ascertain the market value of the land on the date of Notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Act. The method adopted for the purpose of determining the valuation are either opinion of experts or the report of the valuation committee comprising expert committee. The price adopted within a reasonable time in various bona fide transaction of purchase and recent sale instances during the period of acquisition prior thereto or subsequent thereto having similar feature and/or yield method.
Page 20 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again observed that normally the method of capitalizing the actual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of years purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of the market value. It is also by now well-settled that for every year 10% rise by way of appreciation/escalation in price is to be considered, and if any agricultural land is to be converted for non-agricultural purpose, there will be about 25% deduction in the area itself and further the conversion charges of agricultural land will have to be paid for non-agricultural use and such expenses for conversion would also be roughly 5% of burden upon the agricultural land. In short, the agricultural land shall be less by 30% as against the price of the non-agricultural land and if sale instance is of a smaller area comprising of the large area under acquisition, the 1/3 deduction towards development cost is required to be deducted from the valuation.
15. Considering the above referred aspects and facts are not in dispute in the present appeals that the possession of the land was taken by the respondents in 1999; Notification under Section 4 was published on 09.09.1999; Sale deed at Exhibit 30 dated 30.06.1997 and net agricultural income assessed by the Reference Court being Rs.1700/-. Even the Reference Court has not considered net agricultural income without there being any cogent reasons and ignored the agricultural income though it was not challenged by the respondents. Though the appellants have produced documentary evidence to show that the agricultural produce and crops which they have taken during the year and to prove the yield method, the Reference Court has completely ignored the aspects without there being any cogent and material evidence produced by the respondents and considered the price only on the basis of the last five years sale instance which is referred by the respondents in their evidence wherein it was mentioned that the maximum price of non-irrigated land is at Rs.700/- per Page 21 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined Are and price of irrigated land is at Rs.875/- per Are. Even the Court has not considered 10% statutory increased every year since the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded at Rs.650/- per Are, therefore, the Reference Court has awarded additional compensation at Rs.225/- per Are for irrigated land and Rs.200/- per Are for non-irrigated land as Rs.500/- + Rs.200 per Are was awarded by the Reference Court and there was no justification and on the guess work, the Reference Court has come to the conclusion and discussed the said facts in para - 9.1 to 9.2, in fact, it is contrary to the settled principle of law. Considering the decision in the case of Indian Oil Corporation, Siddhpur Vs. Patel Khushalbhai Joitram and another, reported in 2002 (1) GLH 423, it appears that even ignoring the sale instance which is produced by the appellants then if this Court considers the same on the basis of the yield method than they are entitled for Rs.85/- per square meter. Considering the yield method, the appellants are getting above-mentioned income. However, it is noted hereinabove, the Supreme Court has held that normally, the method of capitalizing the actual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of years purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of comparable sales or other evidence for computation of the market value. It is also by now well-settled that for every year 10% rise by way of appreciation/escalation in price is to be considered and if any agricultural land is to be converted for non-agricultural purpose, there will be about 25% deduction in the area itself and further the conversion charges of agricultural land will have to be paid for non-agricultural use and such expenses for conversion would also be roughly 5%, by way of a burden upon the agricultural land. In short, the agricultural land shall be less by 30% as against the price of the non-agricultural land. Lastly, when sale instance is of a smaller area vis-a-vis large area under acquisition, there shall be 1/3 deduction towards development cost. The Reference Court has committed an error while coming to the conclusion that merely mentioned the irrigation facility (well) in the agricultural lands it does not mean that Page 22 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined there was sufficient irrigation facility in the agricultural lands which are acquired by the authority as there was no evidence that how and in what manner the appellants are fetching water from the well whereby they are cultivating the crops in the land in question. Even though that evidence is not controverted, the Reference Court has committed an error in considering the fact that since the Special Land Acquisition Officer has considered five years average sale instance in the village or nearby area and as per that maximum price was coming to Rs.700/- per Are for non- irrigated land and Rs.875/- per Are for irrigated land which is completely erroneous and illegal finding recorded by the Reference Court. The appellants have also supplied the relevant document to the effect that Village: Dhanfulia is situated near Shahpuri Railway Station which is five and half kilometers from Shahpur wherein thermal power station, agricultural university, fast development area and in recent future there was law of development as highway passing through their village and many of them are from potter community and considering the recent development, to develop their work, there are all chances that they are growing very fast and very higher value. It is also well settled by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sardar Sarovar narmada Nigam Limited and another Vs. Patel Haribhai Manilal rendered in First Appeals No. 2832 of 2006 to 2843 of 2006 dated 09.07.2007. This Court is of the opinion that in view of the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the interest of justice would be served if the Court considers the yield method which is suggested by the appellants at Rs.85/- per square meters and 30% development charges to be deducted from Rs.85/-, it comes to Rs.59.5 @ Rs.60/- [Rs.85/- - 30% = 25.5/-] as market value of the land for the subject matter of irrigated land and non- irrigated land while determining the marked value of the lands acquired in the instant case. That after deduction of 30% i.e. Rs.25.5/-, the amount comes to Rs.59.5 @ Rs.60/- [Rs.85/- - 30% = 25.5/-] per square meters as market value. So in view of the above, I am of the opinion that the market Page 23 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined value of the acquired lands comes to Rs.60/- per square meters based on the yield method as per the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Aher Jagmal Lakhman Jodwa (supra).
16. The potential value of the land in so far as the agricultural aspect is concerned was required to be borne in mind by the Reference Court. With regard to the fertility of the agricultural lands acquired, the Reference Court has completely ignored these aspects that all agricultural lands which acquired where the agriculturists are taking crops in a nature and there was no contrary evidence produced by the otherside. Even no any evidence adduced by the respondents with regard to the acquired lands where loss potential value.
17. It is profitably to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-l.A.O. Vs Shaik Azam Saheb reported in (2009) 4 SCC 395. The relevant headnote B and paras
- 11, 12, 13, 23, 25 of this decision reads thus:-
"B. Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - S. 23 - Compensation - Market value - yearly escalation over the rate of exemplar (sale deed relied on) - Factors to be considered - Notification regarding award made in 1995 - Suitable yearly escalation price per acre over the base year of the exemplar registered sale deed dated 12-11-1987, on facts, held, should be @ 10% - Therefore, market value would come to Rs.2,12,500 per acre.
11. Determination of market value of a land acquired in terms of the provisions of the said Act depends upon a large number of factors; the first being the nature and quality of the land, i.e., whether agricultural land or homestead land. Apart from nature and quality of land in the event the agricultural lands are acquired the other factors relevant therefor are also required to be considered, namely, as to whether they are irrigated or non- irrigated, extent of facilities available for irrigation, location of the land, closeness thereof from any road or highway, the evenness of land, its position in different seasons particularly in rainy season, existence of any building or structure as also the development in and around the area. A host of other factors will also have a bearing on determining the valuation of land.
Page 24 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
12. The mode and manner in which determination of such valuation are to be carried out would also depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case, namely, whether any deed of sale executed in respect of similarly situated land near about the date of issuance of notification u/s. 4 (1) of the Act is available, or in absence of any such exemplars whether the claim can be determined on yield basis or in case of an orchard on the basis of the number of fruit bearing trees and the yield therefrom.
13. One other important factor which also should be borne in mind is that it may not be safe to rely only on an award involving a neighbouring area irrespective of the nature and quality of the land. For determination of market value again, the positive and negative factors germane therefor should be taken into consideration, as laid down by this Court in Viluben Jhalejar Contractor V/s. State of Gujarat, 2005 4 SCC 789, namely: (SCC p. 797, para 20) Positive factors Negative factors
(i) Smallness of size (i) Largeness of area
(ii) Proximity to a road (ii) Situation in the interior at a distance from the road
(iii) Frontage on a road (iii) Narrow strip of land with very small frontage compared to depth
(iv) Nearness to developed area (iv) Lower level requiring the depressed portion to be filled up
(v) Regular shape (v) Remoteness from developed locality
(vi) Level vis-a-vis land under(vi) Some special acquisition disadvantageous factors which would deter a purchaser
(vii) Special value for an owner of an adjoining property to whom it may have some very special advantage."
23. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, one- third deduction, in our opinion, should be made towards development costs for the lands situated both in Pasupala village as also B. Thandrapadu village. Keeping in view the fact that the lands are abutting National Highway and near the district town, where a large number of educational institutions have come up, 10 per cent escalation per year has to be added. Thus, Rs. 1,41,666.66 per acre may be fixed for the lands in Pasupala village.
Page 25 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
25. We have adopted the same method which had been adopted by the Reference Judge inasmuch as the Reference Judge had fixed market value for the lands situated in Pasupala village at Rs. 1,00,000.00 per acre and Rs. 90,000.00 per acre in respect of B. Thandrapadu village."
17. Considering the development in the area and evidence of the witnesses, it is an admitted fact that the Dhanfulia situated near Shahpur Railway Station and five and half kilometers away from the Shahpur Railway Station where thermal power station and agricultural university are situated and just abated to the National Highway which is uncontroverted facts and if the said evidence of the witnesses is to be considered then the actual value of the agricultural lands situated in vicinity of Shahpur, rise / increase of 10% every year is required to be applied as per the settled principle of law. The Reference Court has committed serious error of facts and law in not considering 10% rise every year for a period of two years.
18. From the revenue record of the respective land, it is proved that there was existence of well for drawing water. There are documents produced by Talati-Cum-Mantri relating to revenue record showing existence of well. Therefore, the lands are to be treated as agricultural piyat land.
19. In view of the above referred facts, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be served if the appellants / claimants are awarded the total compensation at the rate of Rs.85/- per square meters for their acquired lands less 30% development charges to be deducted from Rs.85/-, it comes to Rs.59.5 @ Rs.60/-. So the appellants are entitled to get Rs.60/- per square meter for irrigated lands and non-irrigated lands. The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is required to be modified to the aforesaid extent.
20. In the result, the appeals are allowed in part. The judgment and award passed by the Reference Court is modified to the aforesaid extent.
Page 26 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/265/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 08/08/2025 undefined
The appellants are entitled to get Rs.60/- per square meter for irrigated lands and non-irrigated lands. Rest of the direction of the Reference Court with regard to interest and solatium shall remain unaltered. The respondents are directed to pay difference of additional amount of compensation to the claimants within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The statutory interest and benefits as awarded by the Reference Court shall remain upheld as it is. The amount which is deposited by the respondents shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants along with the interest accrued thereon after following due procedure through RTGS / NEFT after verifying their bank details. On additional amount, the appellants are entitled to get 9% simple interest from 09.09.1999 till final realization of the award. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and proceedings to the Reference Court forth. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending civil applications shall stand disposed of accordingly. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 27 of 27 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Tue Aug 12 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Aug 12 21:48:13 IST 2025