Gujarat High Court
Taiyabali Yusufali vs State Of Gujarat on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7768 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
=============================================
TAIYABALI YUSUFALI & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR PM BHATT(183) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
MR RISHIT P BHATT(6153) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4,5
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MS.HETAL PATEL, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the Respondent(s) No.
3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4,3.5,3.6
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 10/09/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Page 1 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. This petition invoking extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993, wherein a dispute arose between the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Yusufali Amadbhai, the original owner and the respondent No.3 herein with respect to apportionment of compensation determined under the reference court award for the land in question, which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, "the Act' 1894"), has been adjudicated.
2. The further challenge is to the order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer for apportionment of compensation under the original award, between the original owner namely Yusufali Amadbhai and the respondent No.3, namely Laljibhai Kanjibhai Sorathiya, who claimed to be administrator and through whom the original owner Yusufali Amadbhai was appearing in the land acquisition proceedings. The Further prayer is to declare that the petitioners, who are the heirs and legal representatives of original owner, namely Yusufali Amadbhai are entitled to the entire compensation amount awarded in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993, vide judgment and order dated 28.12.1995 along with the statutory benefits of the Act' 1894.
3. It seems that the entire compensation awarded under the reference Court award dated 28.12.1995 has been deposited Page 2 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined under the order 05.09.2011 and is lying with the reference court as on date. It is admitted to the learned counsels for the parties that there is no disbursement of the amount determined under the reference court award dated 28.12.1995 till date.
4. The question before us is about the validity of the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993, wherein it is held that the entire awarded amount in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993 is to be paid as per the revised award dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector. The applications filed by the rival parties for payment of the awarded amount were rejected leaving it open for them to file fresh applications for the amount that was payable to them.
5. Challenging the order passed by the reference court, it was argued by Mr.P. M. Bhatt, the learned advocate for the petitioners, that the Civil Court has committed a grave error of law in deciding the dispute relating to apportionment of compensation between two rival parties, solely based on the order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Collector, wherein it has directed to apportion the compensation amount for the lands in question namely, Survey Nos. '47' and '48' (total area 62,431 sq.mts.) on the basis of an alleged compromise arrived between the original owner Yusufali Amad and respondent No.3, namely Lalji Kanji.
Page 3 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
6. It is submitted that with the passing of the land acquisition award dated 06.02.1993, appended at page No. '62 / A' of the paper-book (as Annexure 'A'), the land acquisition officer / Deputy Collector became functus officio. The Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to make an order for amendment of the award for apportionment of compensation between the original owner and respondent No.3 on the premise of a compromise arrived between them even prior to the declaration of the award dated 06.02.1993.
7. The attention of the Court is invited to page No. '221 / H' [Annexure 'P' (Colly.)] of the paper-book, which is the order impugned dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation), Rajkot, which reads as under:-
"REVISED ORDER As per the reference No.1 the final award amount between Yusufali Amad and Lalji Kanji was mentioned for the survey no.47 and 48 that was acquired and as for which the compromise was undertaken between the parties. But the name of Yusufali Amad was only mentioned under the form H due to mistake and therefore the below mentioned amendment is carried out under the award record H serial no. 36/37/38 and 39 for survey no.47/48."
8. A perusal of the order dated 30.04.1993 indicates that the Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer, while noticing that the name of Yusufali Amad was only mentioned under Form 'H' of the final award and the account holder was mentioned as 'Yusufali Amad' only for payment of compensation amount, has proceeded to make amendments in Page 4 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined Form 'H', by incorporating the name of respondent No.3 namely Lalji Kanji while recording that a compromise has been arrived between the claimants, namely Yusufali Amad and Lalji Kanji for apportionment of the compensation for the acquired land of Survey Nos.47 and 48, to the extent that Yusuf Amad was entitled to receive the compensation to the tune of 30% and Lalji Kanji would be paid 70% of the compensation. The order dated 30.04.1993 further states that even the compensation payable in future shall be distributed, accordingly.
9. It is pointed out that on a dispute raised before the Civil Court about apportionment of compensation under the reference court award in LAR Case No.62 of 1993, the Civil Court has proceeded to hold that the decision of the Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer dated 30.04.1993 having been made after due inquiry under the Act' 1894, shall be considered as a decisive evidence. A perusal of the reasoning given in the impugned order dated 25.01.2012 of the Civil Court, indicates that the Civil Court has proceeded on the premise that the decision of the Deputy Collector on the question of apportionment of compensation shall be final and decisive, inasmuch as, the Collector is competent to make an inquiry as to who are the persons interested and who have either remained present before him or have been absent. The Civil Court has further recorded that the award under Section 11 shall attain finality in view of the provisions of Section 12, and if any dispute has been raised in the reference filed under Section 18 about apportionment, the same is also required to Page 5 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined be decided in light of the decision of the Deputy Collector dated 30.04.1993.
10. Referring to the order dated 30.04.1993, the Civil Court has further reached at the opinion that the said order signifies the area and also mentions that which parties to be given which amount and further, once the original owner namely Yusufali Amad had been provided the compensation amount to the tune of 30% and Lalji Kanji was paid 70% of the total amount, and the award dated 30.04.1993 also suggests that the said distribution shall also be considered for the future award, no exception can be taken to the same. After saying so, the Civil Court has proceeded to consider certain entries of village form No.7 / 12 of survey No.47 and 48 namely the acquired land and noted that the name of Yusufali Amad had been shown as possession holder therein, whereas in the column for the year 1987 - 88 and 1989 - 90, the name of farmer had been shown as Lalji Kanji.
11. Taking note of the village form No. 7 / 12 kept at Exhibits '148' and '149', it has further proceeded to record that the name of the possession holder under 'Pani Patrak' was of Lalji Kanji, Dhiru Kanji, Hari Kanji and Limba Kanji. There is reference of other documents noted from the record placed by the respondent No.3 before the Civil Court as is evident from the contents thereof. It is also noted that the name of Yusufali Amad was present in the receipts for payment of revenue, however, the person through whom the said money was paid, was shown as 'Lalji Kanji'. Many such receipts from the year 1976 to the year 1991 were placed on record. There is a Page 6 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined reference to the notice issued by the Income Tax Department and the cheque for the payment of the amount of compensation in the name of Lalji Kanji, namely respondent No.3 herein.
12. The Civil Court has also recorded that if the entire revenue record is considered, then the name of Lalji Kanji and others were shown as the 'tenant' for the year 1971 and thereafter, for the year 1991 - 1992, which was mentioned in the 'Pani Patrak'. It is further noted that the heirs of the original owner had been joined only in the land reference proceedings as per the order of the Apex Court and that the reference was filed by Lalji Kanji as the administrator of Yusufali Amad.
13. Taking note of the above, the Civil Court has proceeded to hold that the revised award dated 30.04.1993 was passed to decide the issue about the distribution of the shares between two persons namely Yusufali Amad and Lalji Kanji. As per the said revised award, 70% was to be paid to Lalji Kanji and 30% should be paid to Yusufali Amadali and even the compensation amount under the original award had been actually paid to Lalji Kanji and the heirs of Yusufali Amadali on 20.07.1996 and there has been no objection to the same. While holding so, the Civil Court has also concluded that even apportionment of the awarded amount under the Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993 shall be guided by the conditions of the revised award dated 30.04.1993, which not only decided the rights of the parties as on the date of the said order but also covered future apportionment of compensation.
Page 7 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
14. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the scheme of Act' 1894, though the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer while determining the compensation by declaration of award under Section 11 of the Act' 1894 is empowered to make an inquiry into the objections, if any, made by the persons interested in the land, about the measurement and the value of the land and also the respective interests of the persons claiming the compensation, including the apportionment of the compensation amongst all persons interested in the land, but the said inquiry is only a summary inquiry, inasmuch as, the Collector will decide for apportionment of compensation amongst all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, as per the information received by him or the claims submitted by the persons interested appearing before him. However, on any dispute about the apportionment of compensation amongst various persons interested in the land, if there is no agreement in the matter of apportionment of the compensation, the dispute is to be referred to and is to be settled by the Civil Court. The provisions of Sections 29 and 30 of the Act' 1894 have been placed before us to substantiate the said submissions.
15. It was, thus, argued that once the dispute as to the apportionment of the awarded amount under the Land Acquisition Reference Court No.62 of 1993 was raised before the reference court, the Civil Court was required to adjudicate the same independently without being influenced by any of the observations made in the revised award dated 30.04.1993 Page 8 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined passed by the Deputy Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer.
16. The contention is that the dispute as to the right, title or interest in the land in question or as to who would be the person interested within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Act' 1894 could have been decided only by the Civil Court. The Civil Court has, thus, committed an error of law in holding that the apportionment of compensation under the reference court award would be guided by the revised award dated 30.04.1993 or the observations made by the Deputy Collector about even future apportionment of compensation as per the compromise arrived between the parties before him.
17. It is further argued that the order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer is wholly without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the Deputy Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer could not have made any amendment in the original award, passed on 06.02.1993 which has attained finality in view of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act' 1894.
18. Reference be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v/s. State (NTC of Delhi [(2019) 9 SCC 416], wherein it is held that after the declaration of the award under Section 11, which has attained finality, no review invoking Section 13-A of the Act'1984 is permissible.
Page 9 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
19. There was, thus, no occasion for making any correction or amendment in the original award for passing the revised award dated 30.04.1993 on the alleged compromise arrived between the parties. In absence of any power of review or revision with the Special Land Acquisition Officer / Deputy Collector in the matter of making of the award under Section 11 of the Act' 1984, the amended award deciding the question of apportionment cannot be sustained.
20. Moreover, the inquiry made by the Collector, if any, in the presence of the persons claimed to be interested in the award can only be said to be a summary inquiry which can never have a binding effect on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court when the dispute is raised about the right, title and interest of the persons interested in the acquired land, who would be entitled to compensation. The contention, thus, is that from all these angles, neither the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli nor the revised order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer can be sustained. The dispute as to the apportionment of compensation between the rival parties was required to be decided by the Civil Court with reference the provisions under Section 30 of the Act' 1894 at the instance of any of the parties, in accordance with law. The submission, thus, is that without adjudication on the question of right, title and interest of the rival parties in the acquired land as on the date of acquisition, no decision could have been made as to who would be entitled to disbursement of compensation awarded by the reference court.
Page 10 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
21. In rebuttal, Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 would submit that the respondent No.3 was recognized as a 'person interested' in the land acquisition proceedings by the Deputy Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer in the order dated 30.04.1993 for the reason that a compromise had been arrived between the original owner and respondent No.3 prior to the declaration of the original award on 06.02.1993.
22. It is further submitted that the original owner, namely Yusufali Amadali passed away in the year 1994 and the present petitioners have raised dispute only after the death of the original owner claiming to be his heirs, at the stage when the award passed by the reference court in the year 1995 has been affirmed by the Apex Court with the judgment and order dated 29.07.2009.
23. It was argued before us that no dispute had been raised by the original owner during his lifetime, rather the original owner Yusufali Amadali had entered into a compromise before the Deputy Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer and agreed for apportionment of the compensation to the extent of 70% to the respondent No.3. Once the said compromise was recorded by the Deputy Collector in exercise of its power under Section 11 to decide on the question of apportionment of compensation amongst the persons present before him that too on a compromise arrived between them, no dispute can be allowed to be raised by the heirs and legal representatives of the original owner. The submission is that even the revised Page 11 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined award dated 30.04.1993 had attained finality in view of Section 12 of the Act' 1894 and no dispute can be allowed to be raised to the validity of the said award.
24. On the question as to jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer to pass the revised award dated 30.04.1993, it was argued that the Special Land Acquisition Officer was empowered to make corrections of the errors, which were merely clerical errors in view of Section 13A of the Act' 1894. The submission, thus, is that when all persons interested in the land in question were present before the Deputy Collector and a compromise had been arrived between them and the original owner did not challenge the said compromise during his lilfetime, till the year 1994, no exception can be taken to the order of apportionment of compensation passed within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Collector.
25. The learned counsel for the respondent has also invited the attention of the Court to the language employed in Section 29 of the Act' 1894 to submit that when there are more than one persons interested in the land and they agree on the question of apportionment of compensation before the Collector, the particulars of such apportionment specified in the award as between such persons shall be conclusive evidence of the correctness of the apportionment.
26. The submission, thus, is that the decision of the Collector in passing a revised award dated 30.04.1993 cannot be Page 12 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined assailed on the premise that it was beyond his jurisdiction and, moreover, in view of Section 29, the Civil Court was right in holding that the award dated 30.04.1993 shall be conclusive evidence of the correctness of apportionment. As no dispute survived between the original owner and the respondent No.3 about apportionment of compensation, the reference to Section 30 of the Act' 1894 by the petitioner to assert that the dispute was required to be decided by the reference court, is wholly irrelevant.
27. Considering the above, we made a pertinent query to the learned counsel for the respondent as to the right, title and interest of the respondent No.3 namely Lalji Kanji in the acquired land namely Survey Nos.47 and 48, at the time of acquisition. In reply, the attention of the Court is invited to the documents appended at page No. '254' of the paper-book, along with the affidavit dated 23.02.2013 filed on behalf of the respondent No.3 before this Court.
28. Placing the same, it is contended that an agreement to sell for the land in question was executed by the original owner namely Yusufali Amadali in favour of Lalji Kanji namely the respondent No.3 herein on 17.04.1974. The compromise had been arrived between the landowner namely Yusufali Amadali and the respondent No.3 in view of the said deed namely the agreement to sell, whereby not only the rights in the land in question were to be transferred to the respondent No.3, but actual physical possession of the land in question had already been handed over to Lalji Kanji, namely respondent No.3. The Page 13 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined submission, thus, is that on the date of acquisition, which was made some time in the year 1993, the respondent No.3 was in the actual physical possession of the land in question and it was the reason why the amended award dated 30.04.1993 was passed on the agreement arrived between the landowner and the possessor namely, Yusufali Amadali and the respondent No.3 Lalji Kanji.
29. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.3, there is also reference of various evidences such as record of rights; notice issued by the Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer dated 15.05.1992 in the joint name of Yusufali Amadali and Laljibhai Kanjibhai; the revenue records namely village form No.7 / 12 which reflected the names of Yusufali Amadali; 'Pahani Patrak' which reflected the name of Yusufali Amadali being in possession; the revenue report disclosing the revenue paid by Laljibhai Kanjibhai; notice issued by the Income Tax Officer; Banakhat Agreement and the entries in the passbook about the payment of compensation through cheque in the name of Lalji Kanji; Form 16A of the Income Tax Department reflecting the name of Lalji Kanji as authorized person of Yusufali Amadali as also the notice issued by the Revenue authority for not cultivating the land.
30. By placing these materials before us, it was sought to be argued by the learned counsel for the respondent No.3 that all these materials were placed before the Civil Court to prove that the respondent No.3 was the person interested in the land in question and was entitled for apportionment of compensation which was ultimately agreed by the original Page 14 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined owner and a compromise was arrived between the Deputy Collector.
31. It was, thus, argued that no error can be said to have been committed by the Civil Court in holding that even the apportionment of the awarded amount under the Land Acquisition Reference under Section 18 would be guided by the observation made in the revised award dated 30.04.1992 that even in future, the apportionment shall be in accordance with the compromise arrived between the original owner and the respondent No.3, who have been held to be entitled for compensation in the ratio of 30% - 70% (for the original owner and the respondent No.3; respectively).
32. Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record, we are required to go through the scheme of the Land Acquisition Act' 1894, providing the manner in which the award determining compensation for the acquired land is to be declared by the Collector or the officer authorized by him and further, as to the apportionment of compensation determined under the award passed by the Collector. The power of Collector to make determination of compensation by declaring the award is guided by Section 11, which reads as under:-
"11. Enquiry and award by Collector-
(1) On the day so fixed, or on any other day to which the enquiry has been adjourned, the Collector shall proceed to enquire into the objection (if any) which any person interested has stated pursuant to a notice given under section 9 to the measurements made under section 8, and into the value of the land [at the date of the Page 15 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined publication of the notification under section 4, sub-section (1)], and into the respective interest of the persons claiming the compensation and shall make an award under his hand of--
(i)the true area of the land;
(ii)the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and
(iii)the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him:
Provided that no award shall be made by the Collector under this sub-section without the previous approval of the appropriate Government or of such officer as the appropriate Government may authorise in this behalf:
Provided further that it shall be competent for the appropriate Government to direct that the Collector may make such award without such approval in such class of cases as the appropriate Government may specify in this behalf.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), if at any stage of the proceedings, the Collector is satisfied that all the persons interested in the land who appeared before him have agreed in writing on the matters to be included in the award of the Collector in the form prescribed by rules made by the appropriate Government, he may, without making further enquiry, make an award according to the terms of such agreement.
(3) The determination of compensation for any land under sub-
section (2) shall not in any way affect the determination of compensation in respect of other lands in the same locality or elsewhere in accordance with the other provisions of this Act.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), no agreement made under sub-section (2) shall be liable to registration under that Act."
33. We are also required to note the provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Act' 1894, which read as under:-
"9. Notice to persons interested (1) The Collector shall then cause public notice to be given at Page 16 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined convenient places on or near the land to be taken, stating that the Government intends to take possession of the land, and that claims to compensation for all interests in such land may be made to him. (2) Such notice shall state the particulars of the land so needed, and shall require all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by agent before the Collector at a time and place therein mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of publication of the notice), and to state the nature of their respective interests in the land and the amount and particulars of their claims to compensation for such interests, and their objections (if any) to the measurements made under section
8. The Collector may in any case require such statement to be made in writing and signed by the party or his agent.
(3) The Collector shall also serve notice to the same effect on the occupier (if any) of such land and on all such persons known or believed to be interested therein, or to be entitled to act for persons so interested, as reside or have agents authorised to receive service on their behalf, within the revenue district in which the land is situate.
(4) In case any person so interested resides elsewhere, and has no such agent, the notice shall be sent to him by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known residence, address or place of business and [registered under sections 28 and 29 of the Indian Post Office Act, 1898 (6 of 1898).
10. Power to require and enforce the making of statements as to names and interests:-
(1) The Collector may also require any such person to make or deliver to him, at a time and place mentioned (such time not being earlier than fifteen days after the date of the requisition), a statement containing, so far as may be practicable, the name of every other person possessing any interest in the land or any part thereof as co-proprietor, sub-proprietor, mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, and of the nature of such interest, and of the rents and profits (if any) received or receivable on account thereof for three years next preceding the date of the statement.
(2) Every person required to make or deliver a statement under this section or section 9 shall be deemed to be legally bound to do so within the meaning of sections 175 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."Page 17 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
34. A conjoint reading of Sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Act' 1984 indicates that the Collector was required to cause public notice requiring all persons interested in the land to appear personally or by their agent before him, to state the nature of their respective interest in the land, and the amount and particulars of their claim to compensation for such interest and their objections, if any, to the measurement made under Section 8. The inquiry made by the Collector into the objections, if any, made by the persons interested pursuant to the notice given under Section 9 or to the measurement under Section 8, was to be made at the stage of the declaration of the award. The award declared by the Collector would include:-
(I) the true area of the land;
(ii) the compensation which in his opinion should be allowed for the land; and
(iii) the apportionment of the said compensation among all the persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whom, or of whose claims, he has information, whether or not they have respectively appeared before him:
35. A bare reading of the above requirements of inclusion of the respective claims of the persons interested for the compensation, in the award declared by the Collector indicates that in the matter of apportionment of compensation, the Collector would decide the same amongst all persons known or believed to be interested in the land, of whose claim has been Page 18 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined made before him or information about whose claim has been received. The award passed by the Collector, thus, decides on the question of the true area of the land; the compensation amount for the land and the apportionment of the said compensation amongst persons whom he believes to be persons interested being entitled to compensation.
36. Sections 29 and 30 contained in Part IV are the specific provisions about the apportionment of compensation amongst persons interest, which read as under:-
"Part IV - Apportionment Of Compensation
29. Particulars of apportionment to be specified:- Where there are several persons interested, if such persons agree in the apportionment of the compensation, the particulars of such apportionment shall be specified in the award, and as between such persons the award shall be conclusive evidence of the correctness of the apportionment.
30. Dispute as to apportionment:- When the amount of compensation has been settled under section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute to the decision of the Court."
37. Section 29 empowers the Collector to declare in the award itself about the particulars of apportionment, when there is an agreement to the same amongst several persons interested. To that extent only, the award made by the Collector by virtue of the power conferred under Section 29 contained in Part IV of the Act' 1984 would attain finality and shall be treated as conclusive evidence of the correctness of the apportionment.
Page 19 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
38. However, on settlement of the amount of compensation under Section 11, if any dispute arises as to the apportionment of the compensation or any part thereof, or any question arises as to the person to whom the compensation or a part thereof is payable, such a dispute is required to be referred by the Collector to the Court of competent jurisdiction to adjudicate.
39. In any case, during the course of inquiry into the matter of apportionment of compensation as provided under Section 11 of the Act' 1894, where the Collector decides on the question of apportionment amongst the persons known to him or believed by him to be interested in the land, the Collector has no power to determine on the disputed questions of right, title and interest of claimants or persons interested in the land, appearing before him. The intricate questions of right, title and interest of any person(s) interested in the acquired land or the question as to whom the compensation would be payable or the apportionment thereof amongst the persons interested, if disputed, can only be decided by a Civil Court.
40. In any case, the Collector or the Deputy Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer is not empowered to take any decision on the question of apportionment of compensation, unless and until the persons interested before him were shown to have any right, title and interest in the land in question.
41. In the instant case, the respondent No.3, though claimed to be a person interested in the land in question, but has not been able to demonstrate before us as to the right, title and interest, if any, he has in the land in question. For this reason, Page 20 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined we find that there was no question for the Collector to entertain any compromise or make any award on the alleged compromise arrived between the persons before him by exercising his powers under the Act' 1894, which otherwise found to be beyond his jurisdiction. The order dated 3004.1993, which is the bone of contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.3, in fact, is in teeth of the statutory scheme of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
42. It is the settled principle of law that with the declaration of the award under Section 11, the Collector or the officer authorized by him becomes functus officio. There is no statutory power of review or revision with the Collector under the scheme of the Act' 1894. The quasi judicial authority namely, Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer being the 'creature of statute' cannot make an award/order beyond the jurisdiction conferred by the statute itself. The award made under Section 11 of the Act' 1894, in the instant case, admittedly is dated 06.02.1993, wherein the compensation amount had been determined by the Collector. After declaration of the award dated 06.02.1993, it had attained finality under Section 12 of the Act' 1894, no revision or review in the said award was permissible. The revised or the amended award dated 30.04.1993, thus, is liable to be declared invalid, being beyond the competence of the Deputy Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer.
43. The fundamental principle is that the power conferred upon the Collector/Special Land Acquisition Officer for Page 21 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined apportionment of compensation is for summary inquiry into the rights, title or interest of several persons in the acquired land and determination of their share, where there is no dispute at all. The persons claiming their share in compensation must establish their interest in the acquired land, which must be unimpeachable. Any doubt or dispute, if arises, the matter of apportionment must be referred to the Civil Court. For the above, we find that for any issue about any compromise allegedly arrived between the original owner or the respondent No.3 even if prior to the declaration of the award dated 06.02.1993, the appropriate course for the Collector was to treat the same as a disputed question and refer it for adjudication by the Civil Court. The amended / revised award dated 30.04.1993, in any case, can not fall within the meaning of an award passed under Section 29 of the Act' 1894, for the simple reason that the respondent No.3 has not been able to establish any right, title or interest in the acquired land and only assertion is about an agreement to sell dated 17.04.1974, which is an unregistered document.
44. Further, the contention of the respondent No.3 that the possession of the land in question was transferred to him by virtue of the agreement to sell dated 17.04.1974 (an unregistered document), was required to be examined by the Civil Court to determine the claim of respondent No.3, if any, in the acquired land. As noted hereinbefore, the Civil Court has utterly failed to apply the correct principles of law to examine the controversy before it.
45. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the Page 22 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined respondent No.3 that the amended award dated 30.04.1993 was declared by the Collector in exercise of the power under Section 13A of the Act' 1894, suffice it to say to reject the said submission being wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, the power under Section 13A is restricted to any clerical or arithmetical mistake in the award. The power to make corrections in the award declared under Section 11, conferred upon the Collector under Section 13A cannot be exercised to make any amendment in the award so as to decide on the question of apportionment of compensation between the parties claiming to be persons interested. Reference Naresh Kumar (supra).
46. It may not be out of place to mention here that the learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a dispute between the original owner and the respondent No.3, which was adjudicated by the revenue authorities under the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act' 1948 (for short, "the Tenancy Act' 1948"). The submission is that in the tenancy proceedings namely Ganot Case No.42 / 76 / 77, the claim of the respondent No.3 being the tenant of the land in question had been rejected and the respondent No.3 was declared to be only an agricultural labourer, who was engaged by the original landowner namely Yusufali Amadali. The copy of the order dated 03.01.1977 passed under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act' 1948, appended at page No. '324' of the paper-book, has been placed before us to submit that the claim of possession of the respondent No.3 has to be looked from the angle of that order.
Page 23 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
47. This apart, from the contents of the order impugned dated 25.01.2013 passed by the Civil Court, as noted above, it is evident that there is a reference of some revenue entries in the revenue record here and there, but there is absolutely no adjudication on the claim of respondent No.3 being the persons interested in the land in question making him entitle to the disbursement of the compensation under the reference court award dated 28.12.1995 passed in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993.
48. We may note that by order dated 11.01.2011, the heirs and legal representatives of the original owner namely Yusufali Amadali have been brought on record in the Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993. The award dated 28.12.1995 of the reference court has attained finality with the decision of the Apex Court dated 29.07.2009. The awarded amount under the reference court is lying deposited with the court and has not been disbursed so far.
49. The question, thus, is about adjudication of the right, title and interest of respondent No.3 over the land in question, who claimed to have acquired right by virtue of an agreement to sell dated 17.04.1974. The question would also be as to the effect of the order passed under Section 74 of the Tenancy Act' 1948 by the revenue authorities in the year 1977.
50. All these disputed questions of fact are required to be examined by the Civil Court to adjudicate the right, title and interest of the respondent No.3 in the acquired land namely survey Nos. '47' and '48', subject matter of acquisition in the Page 24 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined year 1993 as also the award dated 06.02.1993.
51. As the Civil Court, namely the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli has absolutely failed to examine the relevant questions for adjudication of right, title and interest of the respondent No.3 in the acquired land while passing the impugned order dated 25.01.2012 and proceeded on a wrong premise of the revised award dated 30.04.1993 having attained finality, which we have found to be invalid, the directions contained in the order impugned of the Civil Court to disburse the compensation in accordance with the revised award dated 30.04.1993, cannot be sustained.
52. In view of the above, we set aside the judgment and order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli, subject matter of challenge herein. Both the prayers made in the writ petition for quashing and setting aside of the amended award dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector / Special Land Acquisition Officer as also the impugned order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in LAR Case No.62 of 1993, are hereby allowed.
53. The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to decide on the question of apportionment of compensation to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Yusufali Amadali namely, the original landowner and also the claim of the representatives of the respondent No.3, having right, title and interest in the land in question.
Page 25 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/7768/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/09/2025 undefined
54. It goes without saying that all questions pertaining to the right, title and interest of respondent No3 over the acquired lands namely Survey Nos. 47 and 48 shall be determined by the Civil Court independently after giving due opportunity to the rival parties to adduce their evidence. The determination shall be made on evaluation of the evidence of both the parties without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.
55. We further direct the Civil Court to adjudicate the claim of the parties for disbursement of the compensation under the reference court award dated 28.09.1995 after adjudication of their rival claims in the acquired lands, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six(6) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
56. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) SAHIL S. RANGER Page 26 of 26 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Tue Sep 16 2025 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 16 22:51:20 IST 2025