Gujarat High Court
Pargi Vana Kala vs Special Land Acquisition Officer on 9 September, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/48/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 48 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 49 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 50 of 2010
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 51 of 2010
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
PARGI VANA KALA
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AV PRAJAPATI(672) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MS AGNEYA MANKAD, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Defendant(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 09/09/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Present appeals are filed by the appellants - original claimants under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the common judgment and award dated 01.04.2006 passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar at Sabarkantha (hereinafter be referred to as "the Reference Court") in Land Acquisition Reference Nos.6 of 1998, Page 1 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:45:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/48/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined 10 of 1998, 14 of 1998 and 12 of 1998 respectively, whereby the Reference Court has awarded Rs.400/- per Are for irrigated lands and Rs.350/- per Are for non-irrigated lands.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are that, for the purpose of scarcity lake, the State Government acquired the lands of the appellants - original claimants situated at Village: Jhinjhavapanai, Taluka: Khedbrahma, District: Sabarkantha. That, notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") was issued on 26.06.1995 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was issued on 05.02.1996. That, the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.160/- per Are for irrigated lands and Rs.140/- per Are for non-irrigated lands by passing an award dated 25.03.1997 in LAQ Case No.112 of 1994.
3. Being aggrieved, the appellants - original claimants, preferred the aforesaid LAR Cases under Section 18 of the Act for additional compensation of Rs.1,000/- per Are. However, the judgment and award dated 01.04.2006 came to be passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar at Sabarkantha. This has aggrieved the appellants, have preferred the present appeals raising various grounds.
4. Heard Mr. A.V. Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the appellants - original claimants and Ms. Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent - State Authorities.
Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:45:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/48/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined
5. Learned counsel Mr. Prajapati has submitted that the appellants had produced sufficient evidence before the Reference Court, as observed by the Reference Court in para-10 of the impugned judgment and award viz., the sale-deeds of village Matoda; one relating to the agricultural land and another relating to non- agricultural land at Exh.-31 and 33, which were extracted from the depositions of the witnesses namely, Madhabhai Mudjibhai Patel at Exh.-30 and Jasubhai Maknabhai Patel at Exh.-32, however, the Reference Court has committed an error while passing the impugned judgment and award by not appreciating those documentary evidence in its true and proper spirit led by the appellants before the Reference Court. He has further submitted that the distance between village Matoda and the present village is of 2 kms. and therefore, both cannot be compared on the grounds of population, development and facilities and therefore, their potential is also not similar. He has further submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error also on facts that the lands of the present village are restricted tenure lands having limited rights under Section 73AA of the Act, whereas, Exh.-31 and 33 are old tenure lands and therefore, both cannot be compared as they are not similarly situated. Learned counsel Mr. Prajapati has strongly referred and relied upon the sale-deeds produced at Exh.-31 and 33 and submitted that the last sale-deed was of the year 1995 i.e. in the same year in which the notification under Section 4 was issued, which is relating to non-agricultural land bearing survey no.308 admeasuring 3238 sq. mtr., which was sold at the rate of Rs.1,98,000/-, therefore, if we consider the last sale-deed, then the market value comes to Rs. 61/- per sq. mtr., and thus, the amount awarded by the Reference Court is very less. Learned counsel Mr. Prajapati has referred and relied upon the decision of this Court Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:45:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/48/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined rendered in case of State of Gujarat vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore, reported in [2010] 3 GLH 447 and submitted that the appeals deserve to be allowed and the award of compensation deserves to be enhanced.
6. As against that, learned AGP Ms. Agneya Mankad, appearing for the respondent State, has vehemently objected the present appeals and submitted that the Reference Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and no enhancement is required to be made whatsoever in view of the findings recorded by the Reference Court and the appellants are not entitled to get any enhanced amount of compensation. She has further submitted that the Reference Court, after considering the relevant documentary evidence and the contentions raised by both the sides, has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and made observations in para-12. She has strongly averred that in view of the findings recorded by the Reference Court in para-12, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. She has further submitted that in para-17 and 18, the Reference Court has observed that in the present case, there was no report of the authority placed on record with regard to the similarity of the lands of village Matoda and the present village and therefore, in absence of any cogent and material evidence produced on record by the appellants, the amount of compensation is not required to be enhanced and the compensation awarded by the Reference Court is just and adequate. She has further submitted that the potential of the land, location and other relevant factors are also to be kept in mind and thus, the Reference Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award and there is no any infirmity or any illegality committed by the Reference Court while passing the impugned Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:45:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/48/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined judgment and award and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present appeals and the present appeals be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. I have also considered the facts of the case and the oral as well as the documentary evidence led before the Reference Court. The fact remains that the documentary evidence produced at Exh.-31 and 33 are legal and valid documents, as under Section 51(a) of the Act, that documents had come on record through concerned witnesses and after examining those witnesses, both the sale-deeds were produced on record after proving the contents of the documents and therefore, the Reference Court ought to have considered the same in its true and proper spirit as the same were produced and proved by the appellants before the Reference Court and therefore, the Reference Court has committed a grave error on facts and on law both by ignoring such documents. On perusal of the document at Exh.-33, it appears that though it was a sale-deed for a small area of non- agricultural land situated at village Matoda, admeasuring 3238 sq. mtr., sold at the rate of Rs.1,98,000/-, however, the same was completely ignored and overlooked by the Reference Court while passing the impugned judgment and award. In view of the ratio laid down by this Court in case of Amaji Mohanji Thakore (Supra), the market value is required to be considered on the basis of the sale instances produced and proved by the appellants before the Reference Court, however, the Reference Court has completely ignored such documents on very flimsy grounds and made Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:45:40 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/48/2010 JUDGMENT DATED: 09/09/2025 undefined observations in para-10, and therefore, in my opinion, if we consider the said sale instances, the value of land comes to Rs.61/- per sq. mtr. and considering the decision in case of Amaji Mohanji Thakore (Supra), 40% towards development charges is required to be deducted from the said amount, which comes to Rs.37/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated lands, and for non-irrigated lands, further 1/3 rd is to be deducted from Rs.37/-, which comes to Rs.25/-per sq. mtr.
8. In view of above discussion, all the First Appeals are hereby partly allowed. The appellants - claimants are entitled to get additional amount of compensation of Rs.31.40ps. (Rs.37 - 1.60 - 4.00) per sq. mtr. for irrigated lands and Rs.20/- (Rs.25 - 1.40 - 3.50 = 20.10 rounded off to Rs.20) per sq. mtr. for non-irrigated lands. The respondent shall deposit additional amount of compensation with statutory benefits before the Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. On deposit of the amount, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants, through RTGS / NEFT and the bank account details shall be furnished by the counsel for the claimants to the Registry of the Reference Court, Himmatnagar. Other observations of the Reference Court for statutory benefits provided under the Act shall remain intact. Decree be drawn accordingly. Record and proceedings, if received be sent back to the concerned Reference Court forthwith.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by DOLLY CHETAN VADUKAR(HC01392) on Thu Sep 11 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Sep 11 22:45:40 IST 2025