Gujarat High Court
Joshi Bhalchandra Shankarlal vs State Of Gujarat on 20 June, 2025
Author: Sangeeta K. Vishen
Bench: Sangeeta K. Vishen
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1083 of 2025
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1084 of 2025
==========================================================
JOSHI BHALCHANDRA SHANKARLAL & ORS.
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR R.K.MANSURI(3205) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.2,1.3,1.4
MS FORAM TRIVEDI, ASSISTANTGOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 20/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI)
1. The issue involved in these appeals is common and hence, both the appeals are being heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Both the captioned appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award dated 31.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned judgment") passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar, District Sabarkantha in Land Acquisition Reference Case no. 2 of 2012 to Land Acquisition Reference Case no. 31 of 2012 whereby, the references under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1894"), has been rejected and thus, the market value determined by the Land Page 1 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined Acquisition Officer under section 11, came to be confirmed. Hence the captioned appeals by the claimants.
3. Mr.RK Mansuri, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants-original claimants and Ms.Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader have jointly submitted that the captioned appeals are arising out of the impugned judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Case no.2 of 2012 to Land Acquisition Reference Case no. 31 of 2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and the captioned appeals pertain to Land Acquisition Reference Case nos. 26 of 2012 and 30 of 2012. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Reference Case no. 2 of 2012 was treated as the lead matter. It is jointly submitted that the First Appeals namely First Appeal Nos. 427 of 2022 to 431 of 2022 and First Appeal No. 4504 of 2022 to First Appeal No. 4511 of 2022, have been disposed of by this Court vide common oral judgment dated 11.02.2025; however, the captioned First Appeals were left out and would be governed by the said judgment. Mr.Mansuri, learned Advocate and Ms. Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader requested this Court to dispose of the captioned appeals in terms of the above referred common oral judgment dated 11.02.2025.
4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents made available on record.
5. Pertinently, the captioned appeals are arising out of the impugned judgment and pertains to Land Acquisition Page 2 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined Reference Case Nos. 30 of 2012 and 26 of 2012. It is also not in dispute that Land Acquisition Reference Case no.2 of 2012 was treated as the lead matter and all the references were disposed of by the common impugned judgment. The First Appeal Nos. 427 of 2022 to 431 of 2022 and First Appeal No. 4504 of 2022 to First Appeal No. 4511 of 2022 have been disposed of by this Court vide common oral judgment dated 11.02.2025 which reads thus:
" The issue involved in these appeals is common and hence, all the appeals are being heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. The captioned group is arising out of the judgment and award dated 31.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as 'the impugned judgment') passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar, district Sabarkantha in Land Acquisition Reference nos.2/2012 to 31/2012 whereby, the reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1894'), has been rejected and thus, the market value determined by the Deputy Collector under section 11, came to be confirmed. Hence, the captioned appeals by the claimants.
3. Mr R. K. Mansuri learned advocate appearing for the claimants, while inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment, submitted that various issues were formulated namely; whether the claimants are entitled for additional compensation, if yes, at what rate permitted?; whether the claimants prove that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate? It is submitted that voluminous documentary evidence was produced on record, namely, the orders allotting residential plots by way of auction of the very same village; the market value determined by the District Level Valuation Committee, Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Valuation Committee') of villages, Shravana, Gambhoi and Viravada. The Valuation Committee in the year 2001, determined the higher market value of the land for allotment to the telephone exchange of village Raigadh, compared to the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer while giving the award. It is submitted that the learned Judge, considered the evidence Exhs.33 to 43 and was of the opinion that the market value determined by the Valuation Committee, is for non- agricultural land (hereinafter referred to as 'NA'); whereas, the land which has been acquired is agricultural land. It is next submitted that it is not in dispute that the Government has allotted the land at concessional rate to the weaker section and, Page 3 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined therefore, the upset price which was determined for auctioning the plot was on a lower side. Otherwise, the prevalent market value was higher than the price which was offered in the auction. It is submitted that evidence, Exh.97, the judgment rendered in the Land Reference Case nos.322/1996 to 329/1996 was considered and the learned Judge, applied 10% appreciation and the amount derived was Rs.23.84 per sq. mtr. Applying and accepting the said formula, the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, was confirmed.
3.1 It is further submitted that Exhs.33 to 39 are all the orders passed by the concerned authority determining the market value ranging from Rs.219 to Rs.254 per sq. mtr. When there was readily available market price, the learned Judge, ought not to have considered the judgment and award passed in the year 1996 for acquisition in question. In fact, various orders passed and the market value determined by the State Government ought to have been appreciated and accepted. Besides, the relevant piece of evidence available was Exh.76 i.e. the market value determined by the Valuation Committee of the land allotted for the purpose of telephone exchange and staff quarters. The Committee, has determined Rs.490/- per sq. mtr. for bigger parcel of land admeasuring 2000 sq. mtrs..
3.2 It is submitted that the learned Judge, ought to have accepted the evidence, Exh.76 and applying appreciation of 10%, the value derived would be Rs.980/-. Effecting either 30% or 35% deduction towards the development, the amount which can be derived would be Rs.686/- and therefore, the correct market value is Rs.686/- which the learned Judge, ought to have accepted. Moreover, of the year 2009 and 2010 there were other exemplars, namely, the report of the experts determining the market value etc.; however, ignoring the same, the learned Judge, has accepted the suggestion offered by the Land Acquisition Officer which, was an erroneous exercise done by the learned Judge.
3.3 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of General Manager vs. Thakore Sovanji Chaturji reported in 2013 (O) AIJEL-HC-229649 wherein, the coordinate Bench, has held and observed that one of the recognized methods for determination of the market value is with reference to the opinion of the experts and the estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted expert committee can form the basis for determining the market value in the land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. Reliance is also placed on the judgment in the case of State of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore reported in 2010 (3) GLH
447. Reiterating the principle that the Valuation Committee is comprising of the expert body in the field of valuation, including District Collector, Town Planning Officers and therefore, there is no reason why the valuation made by the Valuation Committee, cannot be believed. It has been held and observed that for allotment of land by the Government, the Committee determines Page 4 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined the market value and which is accepted by it and when it adopts the market value, it would be impossible not to accept the price when it comes to making the payment of compensation to the private party in lieu of the acquisition of the land acquired of their ownership. In that event, it is incumbent upon the State Government, to pay the price as determined by the Committee manned by the experts. It is submitted that it would be impossible for the State Government to adopt a dual standard inasmuch as, when the land is to be allotted, the market value determined, is on a higher side and when the land is to be acquired, the State Government chooses to adopt the lower rate of market value. Such a dichotomy in the stand of the State Government, may not be accepted.
3.4 It is further submitted that there were other instances of nearby villages. For village Shravana, the Valuation Committee has determined the market price of the Government waste land at Rs.254/-. Similarly, for Government waste land of village Gambhoi, the Valuation Committee determined the market price for allotment of land to animal dispensary at Rs.866/-. Similarly, the land of village Viravada, the Valuation Committee, determined the market value for the commercial purpose at Rs.760/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, the market value suggested by the Land Acquisition Officer was on a lower side. As against this, the market value determined by the expert was a reasonable market value and ought to have been accepted.
3.5 Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Patel Jathabhai Punajbhai vs. North Gujarat University reported in (2015) 3 SCC 650 wherein, it has been held and observed that the proper course to be adopted for arriving at the market value of the agricultural land would be to consider the market value of the non-agricultural land and then, deduct 30% towards the development and adding 10% appreciation, whatever market value is available, it should be considered. Therefore, the learned Judge, instead of relying upon the award of the year 1996, ought to have considered the market value of the NA land and after deducting 30%, should have applied 10% appreciation and arrived at a correct market value. The whole exercise by the learned Judge was erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that if one sees geographical location of all the villages, they are connected to National Highway and are located in a straight line and therefore, the potentiality of lands of all the villages, would be the same.
3.6 It is therefore, submitted that the correct market value which ought to have been accepted, was the market value determined by the Valuation Committee of the year 2001 of very village Raigadh for allotting the land to the telephone exchange and by applying 10% appreciation and deducting 30% of development charges, market value available, should have been accepted; if not, then at least the market value determined with respect to the residential plots, which were allotted by way of an auction, should have been considered and by applying the Page 5 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined appropriate appreciation, the market value ought to have been determined. It is next submitted that the land has been acquired, possession has been taken and is being utilized for the purpose of developing the lake and hence, if the State Government wants to take a stand that the land is not required, would be a misplaced theory propounded by it. It is next submitted that majority of the land acquired has been sub-merged, except 3 hectors out of 50 hectors. Request is made for allowing the appeals.
4. Ms Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, has supported the judgment of the Reference Court. That no error can be said to have been committed while determining the market value. It is submitted that the learned Judge has rightly not considered the evidence Exhs.33 to 43 inasmuch as, the lands involved were non-agricultural lands and were not comparable as much as, the lands acquired are the agricultural lands and would definitely fetch lower price. Also, when there was a direct evidence available with respect to the very same village decided in the year 1996 and applying appropriate appreciation, the market value which was determined was correct market value. So far as 30% deduction is concerned, it was incumbent upon the claimants to have proved by leading evidence; however, the claimants have failed to do so. It is submitted that there was no lapse on part of the State Government and the lands have been acquired after following the proper procedure. It cannot be said that there was any error committed by the Land Acquisition Officer in determining the market value and the learned Judge not entertaining the reference, as the learned Judge was satisfied with the exercise undertaken by the Land Acquisition Officer in determining the market value. It is submitted that the reliance placed on the evidence Exhs.33 to 52, would be misplaced inasmuch as, the lands involved were allotted to the poor strata of people. So far as other evidence is concerned, namely, Exhs.50 to 52, it is neither here nor there inasmuch as, they are the entries in the revenue record. It is also submitted that the evidence, Exhs.76, 77 and 79, are the sale instances of smaller plots and cannot be considered in the acquisition of a larger tract of land.
5. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused and considered the documents made available on record including the paper-book, so also the record and proceedings.
6. Discernibly, the land is acquired for the public purpose and a section 4 notification of the Act of 1894 was published on 21.09.2010, followed by section 6 notification on 08.10.2010. On 01.02.2012, the Land Acquisition Officer has given its award and the market value fixed, was at the rate of Rs.25.85 per sq. mtr. Being aggrieved, the appellants - claimants have filed reference under section 18, culminating into Land Reference Cases. The claim made by the claimants, was of Rs.2500/- per sq. mtr. and the Reference Court, since was not convinced, vide judgment and award dated 31.12.2018, rejected the same.
Page 6 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined
7. Before the Reference Court, the claimants, have submitted oral as well as documentary evidence. By way of oral evidence, the claimants, have examined various witnesses namely Exhs.27, 64, 65, 75 and 135; while documentary evidence, was Exhs.33 to 52 and Exhs.76 to 79 and 85. Similarly, the defendants, have led their evidence, oral and documentary. By oral evidence, Exhs.95 and 144, the defendants have examined the Deputy Collector, Himmatnagar as well as Deputy Executive Engineer, Guhai sub- division. So far as documentary evidence is concerned, various possession receipts are produced vide Exhs.107 to 131, 138 and
139. Besides other documentary evidence produced were Exhs.97, 100, 106, 147 to 154, and 159 to 161. Considering the above-referred oral and documentary evidence, the Reference Court has framed the following issues, namely,
(i) Whether the claimants prove that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate?
(ii) Whether the claimants are entitled for additional compensation? If yes, at what rate per meter?
(iii) Whether the claimants are entitled to get reliefs as prayed for?
(iv) What order and award?
8. The above referred issues (i) to (iii) were answered in negative and issue no.(iv) was as per the final order. Non- acceptance of the reference under section 18 has given rise to filing of the captioned appeals.
9. The claim of the claimants is mainly based on the price determined by the Valuation Committee as evidenced by Exhs.33 to 42 and 76 to 79. It is the case of the appellants that the residential plots were auctioned and allotted to the economically weaker sections at the prices ranging from Rs.219/- per sq. mtr. to Rs.251/- per sq. mtr. Heavy reliance is also placed on the market value determined by the Valuation Committee for the lands situated in the villages Shravana, Gambhoi, Viravada and Raighad itself. By placing reliance, it is claimed that when the market value is assessed by the Expert Committee, it ought to have been considered. On the other hand, the stand taken by the opponents is that reliance is misplaced. Firstly, the lands are small plots; secondly, the lands are developed and non- agricultural and thirdly, the allocation was specifically intended for the poor strata of people. Furthermore, there is a direct evidence of judgment, Exh.97 rendered in the case of self-same village of the year 1996 wherein, the market value determined, was Rs.527/- per Are for irrigated land and Rs.474/- per Are for non-irrigated land; 10% appreciation was allowed for a period of 15 years leading to final valuation of Rs.2,384.71/- per Are, i.e. Rs.23.84/- per sq. mtr. for irrigated land. Therefore, the Land Acquisition Officer, having determined the amount of Rs.25.80/-
Page 7 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined
per sq. mtr., would be reasonable market value. Accepting the stand of the opponents, the reference came to be rejected.
10. Therefore, the key issue which arises for consideration of this Court is whether the learned Judge has rightly evaluated the evidence produced and proved by the claimants and whether the rejection of the reference was justified?
11. While dealing with the said issue, it would be appropriate to discuss the evidence led by the claimants in support of the claim. As discussed hereinabove, the order and the Kabulat; Exhs.33 to 39 are the orders passed and issued by the office of the Taluka Panchayat determining the market value at Rs. 230/- per sq. mtr. for a plot admeasuring 138.51.00 sq. mtrs. Other orders passed by the office of the Taluka Panchayat are with respect to similar parcels of land. Based on the evidence Exhs.33 to 39, the market value of the land, ranges from Rs.213/- to Rs.251/-., which has not been dislodged by the respondents. Additionally, the claimants have also placed on record evidence, namely, Exhs.40, i.e. letter dated 02.07.2010 addressed by the Junior Town Planner, Town Planning & Valuation Department to the Chief Town Planner, referring to the minutes of the meeting dated 06.06.2009 of the Valuation Committee, whereby the market value determined for village Shravana is Rs.254/-. Similarly, Exh.41 is the letter dated 25.3.2010 of the Junior Town Planner addressed to the Collector, referring to the minutes of the meeting dated 02.03.2010 which determined the market value of the land at Rs.866/- in village Gambhoi. The land ademeasuring 8094 sq. mtrs. is allotted for the purpose of construction of an Animal Hospital. Exh.42 is another letter dated 25.05.2010 again by the Junior Town Planner, Himmatnagar to the District Development Officer referring to the minutes of the meeting dated 20.05.2010. In the meeting, the market value determined of the land of village Viravada is Rs.760/-. The land, has been allotted for the purpose of the Viravada Milk Producers Union Ltd. for the purpose of a go-down.
12. Further evidence, Exh.76 produced of the very same village and according to the claimants, it clinches the issue. The said evidence is the minutes of the meeting dated 17.05.2001 of the Valuation Committee, convened under the chairmanship of the Collector wherein, the lands in village Raigadh admeasuring 2000 sq. mtrs. was also one of the subjects and the market value determined was of Rs.490/-. It is not in dispute that the land was acquired for the purpose of telephone exchange and staff quarters. Further evidence, Exh.77, is the minutes of the meeting of the Valuation Committee dated 06.06.2009 of village Shravana. The land involved was a Government waste land, market value of which was considered and determined at Rs. 254 per sq. mtr. Undeniably, villages Shravana and Raigadh are at a distance of 3.5-4 kms. Similarly, evidence, Exh.78 is the certified copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 02.03.2010 of the Valuation Committee. Pertinently, the land involved was of village Gambhoi and was required for the purpose of constructing hospital for animals. The Valuation Committee determined the market value Page 8 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined at Rs.866/- per sq. mtr. Similarly, Exh.79 is minutes of the meeting of the Valuation Committee dated 20.05.2010 with respect to village Viravada, acquired for the purpose of go-down of Viravada Milk Producers Union Ltd. and the price determined was of Rs. 760/- per sq. mtr.
13. As against this, the evidence led by the opponent and accepted by the learned Judge is Exh.97, i.e. the judgment rendered in Land Reference Case nos.322 to 329 of 1996. The market value determined was of Rs.527/- per Are (Rs. 327 per Are Additional compensation (+) Rs.200 per Are already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer) for irrigated land and for non- irrigated land the market value determined was Rs.474/- per Are (Rs.294/- additional compensation (+) Rs.180/- already awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer). The opponents also had produced other evidence, namely, the statement indicating the details of the payment made - Exh.100. Exh.106 was questionnaire and the further evidence were Exhs.138 and 139 giving the details of the land acquisition and the details of the survey numbers where the excavation work was undertaken. Exhs.147 to 149 were the communications and/or orders passed by the Narmada Water Resources, Water Supply & Kalpsar Department & the Deputy Executive Engineer. Besides Exhs.150 to 152 are the rojkam and Exh.153 is the copy of the award. Exh.154 is the list of the survey numbers submerged in water. Exh.159 is the xerox copy of the judgment and Exh.160 is letter of the Executive Engineer, requesting for developing the Pratap Sagar Anushravan Lake for the tourism purpose. Exh. 161 is the letter of the State Government for Chandana lake wherein, the decision for the lake, was withdrawn. Therefore, the only evidence considered by the learned Judge was Exh.97, i.e. the judgment.
14. Pertinently, section 4 notification in the case of the judgment Exh.97 was dated 23.11.1994 and in the case on hand, is dated 21.09.2010. Considering the time lag of fifteen years, the learned Judge applied the appreciation and derived the market value at Rs.23.84/- per sq. mtr. The learned Judge considered the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer at Rs.25.85/- per sq. mtr., Rs.33.60/- per sq. mtr. and for some parcels of land Rs.28.40/- per sq. mtr., and while applying the formula of 10% appreciation on the said market value, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, is correct.
15. As discussed hereinabove, and not in dispute that the authorities have determined the market value of the very same village, namely, Exhs.33 to 39, ranging from Rs.213/- to Rs.251/- per sq. mtr. It is true that the plots involved were smallar in size; however, the valuation by the Valuation Committee with respect to the land of bigger size was very much available, namely, Exhs.40 to 42 and 76 to 79. It is by now well settled that the valuation by the expert committee can be considered for the purpose of arriving at the market value.
Page 9 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined
16. In the case of General Manager vs. Thakor Sovanji (supra) the co-ordinate bench, has held and observed that the Valuation Committee is comprising of the experts in the field of valuation including District Collector and therefore, there is no reason as to why the valuation made by the Valuation Committee of the Government fixing the price for the allotment of the land of the very same village relying upon the sale instances or price fixed by the Government should not be considered. This Court, has also referred to the judgment of the Apex Court and paragraph 8 reads thus:
"8. The perusal of the valuation report dated 15.5.2001 for the valuation of the land at Village Dangarva, which is at Item No.5 of the Valuation Report shows that the land was to be allotted by the State Government to the Central Government for construction of Telephone Exchange at Staff Quarters. It further shows that after considering the location of the land, the valuation was arrived at Rs.588/- per sq. mtrs., and thereafter since it was to be used for commercial purpose, 30% is added and the market value was assessed at Rs.780/- per sq. mtrs. It further shows that the land was bearing Survey No.3 in village site, which was being used for dumping of waste. Therefore, the other location is considered by the Valuation Committee for the purpose of valuation. The said valuation report has come in the evidence of the claimant as well as the officer of the Valuation Department, who was also examined. On the aspects of valuation of the land made for allotment to the Central Government, there is no evidence to the contrary. Under these circumstances, the reliance placed by the Reference Court upon the valuation report could not be said to be erroneous. It may be recorded that this Court, in its decision in the case of State of Gujarat (supra), at paragraphs 21 to 28 had observed as under:-
21.In any welfare State, Government cannot have a dual stand for the same subject. If the land of a citizen is to be acquired, Government has to pay the market price of the land as per the provisions of the Act. Government cannot contend that it shall not pay the market price, since as per the Act it is obligatory on the part of the Government or the acquiring Body to pay the market price as per the provisions of the Act. Similarly when the Government is to allot the land to the citizen or any organization, may be for private or public purpose, it has to be the market price, unless the allotment is for a specific public purpose or by way of a separate class, where a specific concession in the market price is made permissible. In any case, where the reduction of the market price for a specific rate is made permissible, such would be lesser than the market price. These cases where the concession or reduction is to be made, would not exceed the market price. Therefore, it is clear that unless the land is allotted Page 10 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined at a concessional price, in normal circumstances when the Government is to allot the land to its citizen or to any body, the price would be the market prices to be fixed by the competent authority by the Government. Hence, we cannot countenance the stand on the part of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that if the Government is to allot the land to any citizen or a body, higher price shall be fixed as the market price, whereas if the Government is to acquire the land belonging to any citizen or any organization, it shall pay lesser price of the land. To say in other words, if the Government is to allot A land belonging to it to any citizen or to any organization, it will charge B price, but if the very A land is belonging to the citizen and the Government is to acquire under the Land Acquisition Act, the Government shall pay price lesser than the B price to the citizen or the organization. If such is permitted, in our view, it would result into discriminatory and arbitrary approach on the part of the State Government, which cannot be countenanced by the constitutional Court in a welfare State. As observed earlier, if the very A land is acquired belonging to the citizen by the Government, the Government would be required to pay the price, in any case, not less than B price and to be more specific, Government would be required to pay the price, in any case, not lesser than the price fixed by it for the purpose of allotment of the land to any citizen or organization, of course, subject to the change in the nature and character of the land, if any.
22.Even if the matter is to be examined in light of the aspect as to whether the price determined by the competent authority of the Government for allotment of the government land to any citizen or organization can be said as in exercise of statutory power or authority of the statute or not, it appears that the provisions of the Land Revenue Code are clear. Section 62 under the Bombay land Revenue Code, 1879 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') reads as under :-
Section 62. Unoccupied land may be granted on conditions. It shall be lawful for the Collector subject to such rules as may from time to time be made by the State Government in this behalf, to require the payment of a price for unalienated land or to sell the same by auction and to annex such conditions to the grant as he may deem fit, before permission to occupy is given under section 60. The price (if any) paid for such land shall include the price of the Government right to all trees not specially reserved under the provisions of section 40 and shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.
23.Rule 37 of Gujarat Land Revenue Rules (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') provides for manner of disposal of agricultural land, whereas rule 42 provides for disposal Page 11 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined of the land for building and other purposes. Rule 37 and Rule 42 read as under:-
37. Survey numbers how to be disposed of.-
(1)Any unoccupied survey number not assigned for any special purpose may, at the Collector's discretion, be granted for agricultural purposes to such person as the Collector deems fit, either upon payment of a price fixed by the collector, or without charge, or may be put up to public auction and sold subject to his confirmation to the highest bidder.
(2)In the case of such grants an agreement in Form F shall ordinarily be taken from the person intending to become the occupant.
(3)When the land is granted on inalienable tenure the clause specified in Form I shall be added to the agreement.
(4) When the land is granted on impartible tenure an agreement in Form F(1), and, when it is also granted in alienable tenure an agreement in Form I(1), shall ordinarily be taken from the person intending to become the occupant.
(5)The declaration below the agreement shall be subscribed by at least one respectable witness and by the patel and village accountant of the village in which the land is situate
42. Disposal of land for holding and other purposes.- Unoccupied land required of suitable for building sites or other non-agricultural purpose shall ordinarily be sold after being laid out in suitable plots by action to the highest bidder whenever the Collector is of opinion that there is a demand for land for any such purpose, but the Collector may in his discretion, dispose of such land by private arrangement, either upon payment of a price fixed by him or without charge, as he deems fit.
24.The aforesaid shows that as per Rule 37 an unoccupied land can be granted for agricultural purpose to any person by the Collector and such grant of the land can be either upon the price fixed by the Collector or by public auction and can be without charge also. In the same manner Rule 42 provides that the land can be allotted for non-agricultural purpose by the Collector to the highest bidder unless the Collector in his discretion decides to dispose of the land by private arrangement, either upon the price fixed by him or without charge.
Page 12 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined
25.In the present matters, we are not required to examine the aspect of exercise of the powers by the Collector without charge or by private negotiation for disposal of the land for agricultural or non-agricultural purpose, therefore, no discussion is required on the said aspect, but the in the present matter, the aspect of power with the Collector for disposal of the land upon the payment of the price to be fixed by him (other than concessional charge) is to be taken into consideration. If the collector has to allot the land as per Section 62 read with Rule 37 or Rule 42 of the Rules, the same shall be at the price to be fixed by him. He has to determine the price of such land before taking decision for allotment of the land. In the case of Ghunshabhai Govindbhai Pancholi v State of Gujarat and Anr., reported in 1995(1) GLH, 792, the question arose for consideration about the fixation of the price by the Collector under Section 62 of the code read with Rule 37 of the rules and this Court observed that the Collector has the authority to fix the price to be paid for the land which he grants to a person for agricultural purpose and such price has to be fair, reasonable and just and should not be arbitrary or whimsical and he has also to take into consideration the submissions or the material, which may be submitted by the allottee or the person, who is to be allotted the land. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Additional Government Pleader that when a price is fixed by the Collector for allotment of the land to any citizen or organization under the Bombay Land Revenue Code read with the Rules, such action for fixation of the price is not in exercise of the statutory powers. Be it noted that the Collector has to exercise the power subject to general orders of the State Government for the mode and manner of fixation of the valuation and the Collector, therefore, while fixing the market price has to take into consideration the view of an expert body, which is the Valuation Committee and thereafter to take final decision. Therefore, it is not a matter where the exercise of the power by the Collector is not in discharge of the statutory function for fixation of the market price. At this stage, it may also be recorded that even under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, more particularly Section 43 of the said Act, while granting permission to transfer the land, which is held by the agriculturist, who was originally allotted the land as agricultural tenant under the said Act, has to exercise the power for grant of permission upon payment of the premium. At the time when the premium is to be fixed the marked price of the land is to be ascertained by the Valuation Committee of the Government and the opinion is to be considered by the Collector of the valuation made. Therefore, it is not possible for us to accept the contention of the learned Addl. Government Pleader that the valuation made by the Valuation Page 13 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined Committee of the Government of the nearby land for the purpose of allotment of the land to any citizen by the Collector cannot be taken into consideration by the Reference Court. Under these circumstances, the contention of the learned Addl. Government Pleader deserves to be rejected, therefore, rejected.
26.The reliance placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jawajee Nagnatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad, A.P. And Others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC, 595; in the case of Land Acquisition Officer Eluru and Ors. v. Jasti Rohini (Smt.)and Anr., reported in 1995(1) SCC, 717, are for the view that the fixation of the valuation in the valuation register for the stamp Act purpose cannot form as a basis for determination of the market value. Such is not the fact situation in the present case.
27.The Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 15 SCC, 769 on the contrary at paragraph 44 has observed as under:- 44. One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committee, as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by the statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed procedure.
28.In the present case, the valuation has been made by the Valuation Committee for giving opinion to the District Collector in exercise of the statutory power. The Valuation Committee is comprising of the expert body in the field of valuation, including the District Collector himself, T.P. Authority, etc. Therefore, there is no reason why the valuation made by the Valuation Committee of the Government for fixation of the price for allotment of the land at the very village by way of sale instance or price fixed by the Government for allotment of a land to an organization should not be taken into consideration."
17. Yet in another judgment, in the case of State of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr. vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore (supra) the co-ordinate bench, has noted that one of the recognized methods for determination of the market value is with reference to the opinion of the experts. The estimation of market Page 14 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined value by such statutorily constituted expert committee as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in the land acquisition cases as the relevant piece of evidence. Reference has been made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lal chand vs. Union of India reported in (2009) 15 SCC 769.
18. It is therefore, a well recognized principle of law that when the market value is determined by the committee comprising experts, there is no reason as to why it should not be considered. The only reason for not accepting the market price determined by the experts and/or market price determined for the purpose of auctioning the plot was that the lands involved were non- agricultural land whereas, the lands in question were agricultural. However, the fact remains that the market value determined by the experts in the field, was of the year 2010 which was in close proximity to the date of section 4 notification dated 21.09.2010. Hence, there was no valid reason available to the learned Judge to disregard the said market value determined. If the Court was of the opinion that the categories differed, i.e. non-agricultural and agricultural, then the best method available to the Court below would have been to apply applicable deductions.
19. At this stage, if one considers the evidence, Exh.65 which is the examination-in-chief of the Talati-cum-Mantri of the Raighad Gram Panchayat, he has stated that in the year 2007, plots of the Gamtal were allotted based on a market value at Rs.219/- per sq. mtr. Necessary Kabulat and Sanad were also issued - Exh.33. He further stated that the auction, was conducted as per the prevalent market value of the year 2007. Citing various instances, he indicated that the market value of the land ranged from Rs.219/- to Rs.251/-. A reading of the cross-examination of the said witness suggests that nothing to the contrary has been proven. It has also been indicated that the evidence Exhs.33 to 36, in comparison to the lands that were acquired, are at a distance of 30 mtrs. It is also stated that the lands which have been acquired, are connected to National Highway no.8. Indicating the distance between the villages Raighad and Gambhoi, it is stated that the distance is almost 7 to 8 kilometers; whereas, the distance between village Raighad and Viravada is 12 kms. and distance between village Shravana and Raighad is 5 kms. The evidence Exhs.33 to 39, have not been dislodged.
20. Similarly, the evidence - Exh.75 is of the Chitnis from the office of the Collector. He has substantiated the market value determined in the year 2001 by the Valuation Committee, at Rs.490/- per sq. mtr. in the case of allotment of land to the Telephone Exchange and the staff quarters. Therefore, in the year 2001, the price determined was Rs.490/- per sq. mtr. The evidence further states that in the year 2010, for village Shravana, the market value determined was Rs.254/-. Additionally, the sale instances of other villages, namely, Gambhoi and Viravada have also been provided which are to an extent of Rs.866/- per sq. mtr. and Rs.760/- per sq. mtr. respectively.
Page 15 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined
During the cross-examination, it was stated that the evidence - Exh.76, the minutes of the meeting of the Valuation Committee dated 17.05.2001, pertains to the non-agricultural land. Similarly, the evidence - Exhs.78 and 79 of village Gambhoi and Viravada are also of non-agricultural land.
21. Exh.95 is the examination-in-chief of the Deputy Collector, who has deposed that she has perused the documents and the record. In her testimony, she has laid emphasis on the judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Case nos.322 to 329 of 1996 dated 31.01.2011. It is also stated that the land acquired is of the same village with similar potential and hence, in absence of any appeal filed against the said judgment, it should be considered. In her cross-examination, the witness, has stated that village Raighad, is the largest village in Himmatnagar and is connected to the National Highway. It was also stated that the acquired land is submerged; however, the witness could not dislodge the evidence, Exhs.33 to 39 and 42, 44 so also Exhs.76 to
79. The evidence provided by the witness touches on the aspect of acquisition and has accepted the price determined by the Valuation Committee Exh.41 of village Gambhoi for block no.392 admeasuring 8094 sq. mtrs. of non-agricultural land. The market value determined, was Rs.866/- per sq. mtr.
22. Furthermore, the Deputy Executive Engineer has deposed vide Exh.144. He accepted the aspect of acquisition of the land for the public purpose of Pratap Sagar Anushravan Lake. Also, the steps taken for the purpose of constructing the boundary wall around the lake. In cross-examination, it is admitted that he had no information to substantiate the market value. Thus, the witness, could not dislodge the determination of the market value.
23. What weighed with the learned Judge, was the judgment of the Reference Court of the very same village of the year 1996. Applying the 10% appreciation, the learned Judge, arrived at the market value and based on that concluded that the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer, is a fair market value. However, significant time has passed since then and the sale instances vide Exhs.33 to 39, 41, 42, 76 to 79 were highly relevant , which could have been analyzed by the learned Judge; however, it was not done and instead, the judgment of the year 1996 was considered.
24. Perceptibly, villages Raighad, Shravana, Gambhoi and Viravada are aligned and connected to National Highway no.8. The evidence produced pertains to the villages Shravana, Gambhoi and Viravada; however, this Court finds that villages Gambhoi and Viravada are at a greater distance and hence, Exhs.41, 42, 78 and 79, are not considered. The nearby village is Shravana and the distance between Raighad and Shravana is hardly 3.4 kilometers. The market value of the very village and village Shravana was also available and therefore, it would have been appropriate to accept that market value. The market value determined by the Valuation Committee of village Page 16 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined Shravana of the year 2009 was Rs.254/- per sq. mtr.
25. Concededly, the distance between village Shravana and Raighad is hardly 3 to 4 kilometers and the readily available market value determined by the Valuation Committee was well- documented and could have been accepted. Upon considering other evidence of the same village, namely, Exhs.33 to 39, the market value determined, ranged from Rs.219/- to Rs,251/- per sq. mtr. The only distinction is that the lands in question, are non- agricultural. Therefore, the market value of the land, was readily available of the same village of the years close to the date of section 4 notification. Applying the requisite appreciation and deduction of 30 %, the market value could have been appropriately determined. In the opinion of this Court, Exh.40, which is the minutes of the meeting of the Valuation Committee of village Shravana of the year 2009, is in close proximity to the date of section 4 notification. When there is an opinion of the Expert Committee constituted by the State Government comprising the Deputy Collector, Collector and Town Planning Officer; there is no reason to doubt the same. Moreover, the section 4 notification in the present case, is dated 21.09.2010 and hence, the appreciation would be available for almost 15 months which would come to Rs.31/-, over and above the market value determined by the Valuation Committee at Rs.254/- per sq. mtr. Therefore, the clear market value would be Rs.285/- per sq. mtr. (Rs.254 (+) Rs.31).
26. Consequently, the judgment and award dated 31.12.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar, district Sabarkantha, rejecting the reference, deserves to be quashed and set aside and is hereby, quashed and set aside. All the claimants are entitled to additional compensation as discussed hereinabove at the rate of Rs.285/- per sq. mtr. for the irrigated land together with statutory benefits as provided in sections 23(1- A), 23 together with interest under provisions of section 28 of the Act of 1894.
27. First Appeals, stand partly allowed. No order as to costs.
28. Record & proceedings, be sent back to the concerned Court."
6. In view of the similarity and the fact that the appeals are arising out of the common impugned judgment, the common oral judgment dated 11.02.2025 passed in First Appeal Nos. 427 of 2022 to 431 of 2022 and First Appeal No. 4504 of 2022 to First Appeal No. 4511 of 2022 applies on all fours to the facts of the captioned appeals and hence, the Page 17 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1083/2025 ORDER DATED: 20/06/2025 undefined captioned appeals are being disposed of in terms of the above referred common oral judgment dated 11.02.2025. In view thereof, the impugned judgment dated 31.12.2018 deserves to be quashed and set aside in connection with the captioned appeals and is hereby quashed and set aside. All the claimants are entitled to additional compensation as discussed hereinabove at the rate of Rs.285/- per sq. mtr. for the irrigated land together with statutory benefits as provided in sections 23(1-A), 23 together with interest under provisions of section 28 of the Act of 1894.
7. The captioned First Appeals, stand partly allowed. No order as to costs.
8. Record & proceedings, are already directed to be sent back to the concerned Court and hence, no further orders are required to be passed.
(SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) (MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J) GIRISH Page 18 of 18 Uploaded by GIRISH K PARMAR(HC00954) on Sat Jun 21 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 23 23:06:05 IST 2025