Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer/General Manager vs Waghela Balabhai Vahaji on 4 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1351 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 63 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1351 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1352 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 93 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1352 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1353 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 78 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1353 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1354 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 71 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1354 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1355 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 64 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1355 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1356 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 67 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1356 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1357 of 2018
Page 1 of 28
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 96 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1357 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1359 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 101 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1359 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1360 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 94 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1360 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1375 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 97 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1361 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 77 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1362 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 73 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1363 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 68 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1364 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 69 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1365 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 84 of 2022
Page 2 of 28
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1366 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 26 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1367 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 29 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1369 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 25 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1370 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 23 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1372 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 35 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1373 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 28 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1376 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 38 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1377 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 37 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1378 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 27 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1386 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 53 of 2022
Page 3 of 28
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1390 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 55 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1391 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1358 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1361 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1362 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1363 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1364 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1365 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1366 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1367 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1368 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1369 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1370 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1371 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1372 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1373 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1376 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1377 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1378 of 2018
Page 4 of 28
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1382 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1386 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1388 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1390 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1391 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1379 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 30 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1379 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1380 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 31 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1380 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1381 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 32 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1381 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1383 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 34 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1383 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1384 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 24 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1384 of 2018
Page 5 of 28
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1385 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 22 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1385 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1387 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 36 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1387 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1389 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 33 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1389 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1392 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 56 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1392 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1641 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 85 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1641 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 99 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1642 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 92 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1644 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 79 of 2022
Page 6 of 28
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1645 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 76 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1646 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 90 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1648 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 74 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1649 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 66 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1650 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 89 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1651 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 72 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1654 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 95 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1656 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 82 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1658 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1644 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1645 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1646 of 2018
Page 7 of 28
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1648 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1650 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1652 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1654 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1656 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1657 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1658 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1642 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1649 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1651 of 2018
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1643 of 2018
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 98 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1643 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
=======================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes -
=======================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
WAGHELA BALABHAI VAHAJI & ORS.
=======================================
Page 8 of 28
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
Appearance:
MRS KRISHNA G RAWAL(1315) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR JINESH H KAPADIA(5601) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MR TUSHAR CHAUDHARY(5316) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS KRISHNA DESAI AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS AGNEYA MANKAD AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MS DEVANSHIBA RANA AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4
=======================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 04/07/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter be referred to as "the Act") challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 06.04.2017 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa, District: Banaskantha in Land Acquisition Reference No.65 of 2013 (main case) and other allied matters. By the said common judgment and award, the learned Judge has partly allowed the Reference and has enhanced the amount of compensation determining the market value of land acquired at the rate of Rs.160.75 paise per square meter. Apart from the said enhancement amount of compensation, the learned Judge has also awarded consequential statutory benefits of solatium along with the interest.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the agriculture lands Page 9 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined of respondents No.1 to 3 - original claimants situated at Village Ubari, Taluka: Kankrej, District Banaskantha have been permanently acquired for the purpose of constructing new broad gauze railway line of Patan - Bhildi vide Land Acquisition Case No. 14 of 2009. For the purpose of acquisition, the award has been declared as per rate of Rs. 24.25 per square meter on 21.06.2012 and paid compensation to the respondents. It is contended that thereafter, the original claimants had preferred a reference cases before the Special Land Acquisition Officer claiming being as original value of the land should be Rs. 1000/- per square meter, but it was decided only Rs. 24.25 per square meter. The Notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued.
2.1 That the amount of award on the basis of the comparison with the land bearing survey No. 18, 27 paiki, 128 midway of survey no. 3, midway between Sr.No. 395 and 420 and land of the River Banas etc. In respect of these lands, the award of Rs. 525 per square meter following the rates of year 2016 as per exhibit 15 and 16 based on such land has been converted into non-agriculture situated near the road.
2.2 The appellant has filed the written statements in each reference cases wherein it has been stated that the fixed compensation is just and proper after considering quality of the acquired land and surrounding sale transactions. At the time of hearing, claimants have not produced any single documents to Page 10 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined decide the rate of compensation and the dispute nor objection has been raised.
2.3 After hearing the respective parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned Judge has partly allowed the reference and directed the respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.185/- per square meter for the acquired agricultural land considering the rate of Rs.525/- per square meter in favour of the claimants. The details of the additional amount are as under:-
Calculation of additional amount which is to be paid L.A.R. No. 65/2013 to 125/2013 Sr L.A.R. No. Survey Acquired Square Amount Total amount No. number land H.R. meter per Sq.Mtr.
1 65/2013 917 00-80-15 8015 160.75 12,88,411.25 2 66/2013 918/P/2 00-22-00 2200 160.75 3,53,650/- 3 67/2013 918/P/1 00-04-76 476 160.75 76517/- 4 68/2013 922/P 2 00-25-45 2545 160.75 4,09,108/-
5 69/2013 922/Paiki 00-23-69 2369 160.75 3,80,816.75
1/1
6 70/2013 926 00-00-02 2 160.75 321.50
446/P1 00-56-97 5697 915792.75
9,16,114.25
7 71/2013 927/P 00-51-58 5158 160.75 8,29,148.50
8 72/2013 18 00-09-42 942 160.75 1,51,426.50
9 73/2013 6/P/1/2 00-01-01 101 160.75 16235.75
7/2 00-00-26 26 4179.50
20415.25
10 74/2013 6/P/1/1 00-34-12 3412 160.75 5,48,479/-
11 75/2013 6/P/2 00-60-65 6065 160.75 9,74,948.75
12 76/2013 5 00-60-66 6066 160.75 9,75,109.50
13 77/2013 3/P 1 00-38-50 3850 160.75 6,18,887.50
14 78/2013 128/6/P/1 00-13-21 1321 160.75 2,12,350.75
15 79/2013 128/5 00-13-78 1378 160.75 2,21,513.50
16 80/2013 128/4 00-00-58 58 160.75 9,323.50
17 81/2013 128/3 00-29-00 2900 160.75 4,66,175/-
Page 11 of 28
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
18 82/2013 128/2 00-02-78 278 160.75 44,688.50
129/P/2/P 1 00-08-71 871 1,40,013.25
1,84,701.75
19 83/2013 133/3 00-23-84 2384 160.75 3,83,228/-
20 84/2013 133/2 00-30-84 3084 160.75 4,95,753/-
21 85/2013 133/1 00-25-00 2500 160.75 4,01,875/-
22 86/2013 402/3/P/1 00-15-00 1500 160.75 2,41,125/-
23 87/2013 402/2/P 1 00-30-96 3096 160.75 4,97,682/-
24 88/2013 402/1 P 1 00-00-41 41 160.75 6,590.75
25 89/2013 402/1 P 2 00-04-17 417 160.75 67,032.75
26 90/2013 401/P 1 00-04-50 450 160.75 72,337.50
27 91/2013 401/ P 2 00-30-00 3000 160.75 4,82,250/-
28 92/2013 400/P /2 00-18-34 1834 160.75 2,94,815.50
29 93/2013 400/ P 1 00-04-14 414 160.75 66,550.50
30 94/2013 398 01-05-12 1051 160.75 16,89,804/-
2
31 95/2013 392/ P 1 00-28-61 2861 160.75 4,30,970.75
393/2 00-00-79 79 12,699.25
395/ P / 2 00-00-54 54 8,680.50
4,52,350.50
32 96/2013 394/P1 00-62-58 6258 160.75 10,05,973.50
33 97/2013 394/P/2 00-01-33 133 160.75 21,379.50
34 98/2013 393/1 00-04-99 499 160.75 80,214.50
35 99/2013 395/P/1 00-47-30 4730 160.75 7,60,347.50
36 100/2013 368/3 00-09-40 940 160.75 1,51,105/-
37 101/2013 420 00-03-05 305 160.75 49028.75
38 101/2013 421/ Paiki 1 00-31-27 3127 160.75 5,02,665.25
39 102/2013 421/ P 2 00-27-70 2770 160.75 4,45,277.50
40 103/2013 421/ P 3 00-48-54 4854 160.75 7,80,280.50
41 104/2013 429/ Paiki 2 00-88-82 8882 160.75 14,27,781.50
42 105/2013 428/ P 2 00-30-25 3025 160.75 4,86,268.75
43 106/2013 428/ P/1 00-49-30 4930 160.75 7,92,497.50
44 107/2013 436/ P 1 00-48-93 4893 160.75 7,86,549.75
45 108/2013 437 00-74-04 7404 160.75 11,90,193/-
46 109/2013 444 00-59-15 5915 160.75 9,50,836.25
47 110/2013 446/ P 2 00-32-00 3200 160.75 5,14,400/-
48 111/2013 449 00-62-41 6241 160.75 10,03,240.75
49 112/2013 450 00-49-40 4940 160.75 7,94,105/-
50 113/2013 537 00-00-90 90 160.75 14,467.50
51 114/2013 536 00-18-58 1858 160.75 2,98,673.50
517/1 00-00-47 47 9,555.25
3,06,228.75
52 115/2013 451 00-46-42 4642 160.75 7,46,201.50
53 116/2013 523/ Paiki 3 00-78-91 7891 160.75 12,68,478.25
54 117/2013 523/ Paiki 2 00-65-19 6519 160.75 10,47,929.25
55 118/2013 523/4 00-61-28 6128 160.75 9,85,076/-
56 119/2013 518 00-96-40 9640 160.75 15,49,630/-
57 120/2013 516/ P 1 00-90-12 9012 160.75 14,48,679/-
58 121/2013 515/ P 2 00-72-61 7261 160.75 11,67,205.75
59 122/2013 515/ P 1 00-36-36 3636 160.75 5,84,487/-
Page 12 of 28
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
60 124/2013 508 00-81-02 8102 160.75 13,02,396.50
61 125/2013 509 00-23-23 2323 160.75 3,73,422.25
3. Heard Ms.Krishna Rawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr.Jinesh Kapadia, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Ms.Roshni Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms.Krishna Desai Patel, learned Assistant Government Pleader, Ms.Agneya Mankad, learned Assistant Government Pleader and Ms.Devanshiba Rana, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.4 in respective appeals.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of appeal and has also submitted that learned Judge has committed an error in law and facts in considering the rate Rs.525/- per square meter as compensation. It is submitted that in the present case, the lands were acquired in the year 2010 and accordingly, the price of the land prevailing in the year 2016 cannot be compared with the land acquired in the year 2010. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have considered the fact that the compared lands are non-agricultural land and near the road and so it is valuable, whereas, the lands of the claimants are agricultural and located from the same and, therefore, the claimants are not entitled to obtain price according to the compared lands. It is further submitted that learned Judge has committed an error in relying upon Exhibit 15, valuation of the Page 13 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined lands has been done by the District Valuation Committee on 09.10.2015 while the notification under Section 4 pertains to the acquisition of land is 25.03.2010. It is submitted that in Exhibit 15, it has been specifically stated that there cannot be any other additional evidence than the present one to award the compensation, which pertains to valuation of having difference of about 5 years and hence, the award is based only on an evidence, therefore, the increase compensation is inadequate. It is submitted that the learned Judge has, while passing the impugned judgment and award, misinterpreted the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of O. Janardhan Reddy Vs. Special Deputy Collector, L.A. Unit - iv, Lmd, Karimnagar, A.P., reported in (1994) 6 SCC 456. It is further submitted that though the claimants have not produced any relevant evidence so as to decide the market price of the acquired lands in the year 2010, the learned Judge has allowed the references and awarded Rs.185 - Rs.24.25 paise and has ordered to pay Rs.160.75 paise which is unjust and illegal. It is submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in directing the appellant to pay 30% solatium in addition to compensation as per Section 23(2) of the Act, which is illegal and unjust. It is also submitted that the learned Judge has committed an error in directing the appellant to pay 12% additional enhancement from the date of publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Act or from the date of award. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge has failed to consider the fact of the case and given direction to Page 14 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined pay 9% interest from the first year from the date of taking possession thereafter 15% interest to the claimants until depositing the amount as per Section 28 of the Act is unlawful.
4.1 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has relied upon the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Executive Engineer, Deputy Chief Executive Engineer Vs. Rabari Malabhai Kesharbhai, reported in 2024 JX (Guj) 439 and in the case of Deputy Chief Executive Engineer Vs. Lilaji Ranchhodji Thakore reported in 2024 JX (Guj) 438.
4.2 Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, at the outset, has submitted that the Reference Court has committed an error of law and facts in awarding an amount of Rs.185/- per square meter towards compensation based upon the document at Exhibit 15 and the award passed in similar Village: Bayad.
Relying upon the decision in the case of Sujlam Suflam Canal Project, it is submitted that the Reference Court has completely ignored the said aspect and not considered in its true and proper spirit. It is submitted that the Reference Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the subject parcel of land in the nature of agriculture land and while determining the market value, the Reference Court has not properly appreciated the ratio laid down by this Court, as Exhibit 15 which is referred and relied upon by the respondents, was of non-agricultural lands, whereas, the lands in question are agricultural lands and, therefore, after considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Page 15 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined case Trishala Jain and another Vs. State of Uttaranchal reported in (2011) 6 SCC 47 and the decision of this Court, the Reference Court has not properly appreciated the fact while passing the impugned judgment and award in favour of the claimants. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the present appeals deserve to be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has submitted that the Reference Court has not committed any error of facts and law in allowing the reference cases and awarding the compensation. It is submitted that the lands situated at Ubari have been acquired for Patan to Bhiladi New Broad -Gauge Railway line and Notification under Section 4 of the Act published on 25.03.2010. It is submitted that the claimants have relied on the District Valuation Committee Report at Exhibit-15 wherein the price has been decided at the request of railway for allotment of 19,290 square meters land of Village Ubari. It is submitted that the Collector wrote a letter at Exhibit 16 with regard to payment for allotment of the land pursuant to the valuation wherein over and above the price fixed, an additional amount was levied for conversion for Non-Agricultural purpose. It is also submitted that an application for allotment of land was made by the railway on 03.03.2009, which has been admitted by appellant in their cross examination and appellant has not produced any documentary evidence except Page 16 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined Notifications under the Act and no evidence of valuation of the land of other village were produced before the Reference Court and since no evidence of comparable instances has been produced by the appellant, the decisions relied by the appellant of other villages cannot be helpful to the appellant as there was no evidence about the comparability and even otherwise when evidence of same village is available on record, valuation of other villages can not be taken into consideration. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1, 2 and 3 has referred and relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Amaji Thakore, reported in 2010 (3) GLH 447 and submitted that in the said decision, this Court has held that valuation done by valuation committee for allotment of land to any organization should be considered for evaluation of market value of very village. It is submitted that Notification under Section 4 of the Act is dated 25.03.2010 and valuation has been decided on 09.10.2015 and, therefore, there is difference of around 5 years and since valuation of the valuation committee is done by the Government Officer, there is no question of manipulation of price. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Major Jitendra Kumar and others reported in (1982) 2 SCC 382, it is submitted that in the said decision, the 3 years subsequent sale deed have been considered under the Act. Relying upon the another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan (since deceased) through His Lrs Etc. Vs. State of Haryana and ors in Civil Appeal No.4772- Page 17 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined 4773 of 2025 delivered on 03.04.2025, it is submitted that the Court reversed the deduction at the rate of 7.5%, which is permissible and, therefore, deduction made by the Reference Court for 5 years at the rate of 7.5% per year is justified; 30% deduction for type of land. It is submitted that the Reference Court has erred in deducting 30% from the price decided at Exhibit 15 by holding that the lands evaluated in Exhibit 15 are of non-agricultural lands which is not correct in view of letter written by Collector at Exhibit 16 wherein over and above the price fixed at Exhibit 15, an additional amount was levied for conversion for Non-agricultural purpose and, therefore, it is proved that the amount as decided at exhibit 15 was for agricultural lands only. It is further submitted that smaller area fetches more price then larger are, on that principal, the Reference Court has deducted 10% and in the District Valuation Committee Report (Exhibit-15) the price has been decided at the request of railway for allotment of 19,290 square meters land whereas the land of each claimant is small in size. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thakarsibhai Devjibhai and others Vs. Executive Engineer, Gujarat and another reported in (2001) 9 SCC 584, it has been submitted that in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that each claimant's land has to compare with the exemplar and not by clubbing all acquired land and therefore acquired land of each claimant much smaller than Exhibit 15 evaluation and, therefore, the Reference Court has erred in deducting 10% on the ground of smallness. It is Page 18 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined submitted that the interest of justice will be served if 20% deduction may be made and Rs.525/- as per Exhibit 15 - Rs.217 (deduction for 5 year 6 month @7.5% year) Rs. 308 - Rs. 62 @ 20% deduction instead of 40%. It is submitted that the appeals being meritless deserve to be dismissed.
5.1 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 to 3 has submitted that the deduction with regard to the area of lands or the nature of the lands is not made any difference in the decision of the Court while determining the value as there was no other relevant piece of material produced before the Court, the Court ought not to have considered the submissions of the otherside, while allowing the appeals. It is submitted that since some of the agriculturists having lands on prime location adjacent to the railway line and having hospitals and other facilities in the villages, the Market Valuation Committee Report has assessed the market value of the subject parcel of lands is on lower side and the same requires to be enhanced and, therefore, he has urged to enhance the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.350/- per square meter instead of Rs.185/- per square meters as awarded. It is submitted that the deduction for the purpose of considering the nature of the lands, the Reference Court deducted 30% towards development charges is erroneous and it cannot be deducted from the said parcel of lands. It is submitted that 10% deduction towards the area of the land i.e. smallness of area is also contrary to the settled principles of law and the deduction difference towards the time gap between the Page 19 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined Notification and the sale instances. It is also submitted that the Market Value Committee has considered sale transaction took place in the year 2015 and the Notification is of 2010 and, therefore, the deduction under the head of 7.5% is also illegal and improper and hence, all the claimants are entitled for Rs.350/- per square meters towards compensation for the subject lands.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.4 has assisted the Court.
7. This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the decisions relied upon at the Bar. This Court has perused the judgment and award passed by the Reference Court and the material placed on record.
8. From perusal of the record, it is an undisputed fact that the lands of the original claimants have been acquired for the public purpose i.e. for the construction of Patan - Bhildi New Broad Gauge Railway line. The Railway authorities have undertaken necessary steps to acquire the lands by following due procedure of law as prescribed under the Act. On perusal of the record and carefully reading the impugned judgment and award passed by the Reference Court as well as I have personally examined and verified the record and on perusal of the records, it is evident that the instances, which were placed for consideration before Page 20 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined the Reference Court included the District Valuation Committee Report at Exhibit 15. The respondents have produced documentary evidence which is referred in para - 9 of the judgment and award. The Market Valuation Committee Report is based to determine the market value of the subject parcel of lands. It is now well settled that in absence of any other relevant and cogent evidence in terms of the sale instances or any other award passed in similar group of reference, the reliance can be placed upon the Market Valuation Committee Report.
9. It is relevant to refer to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer Vs. Rajput Devjibhai Jethabhai reported in 2025 (0) GUJHC 26149 : 2025 (0) JX (Guj) 645 wherein the Division Court has held and observed that principles governing market value determination were well - settled; reliance on expert opinions and recent transactions were appropriate. The evidence indicated that lands were similarly situated with no substantial disqualification presented by the State to challenge valuation findings.
10. In view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the reference came to be decided. I have an occasion to examine the record and proceedings of the Reference Court in Reference Case No. 65 of 2013 (main case) and other allied appeals, the copy of the aforesaid award of the Reference Court is forming part of the record. On perusal of the finding recorded by the Page 21 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined Reference Court in Land Reference Acquisition Case No. 65 of 2013 and allied matters indicate that the said Land Reference Acquisition arose from Land Acquisition Cases. The Notification under Section 4 of the aforesaid case was issued on 25.03.2010 and was later on published on 25.04.2010. The said Notification was followed by Section 6 Notification was published on 21.06.2010. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Patan, had passed an award under Section 11 of the Act on 06.04.2017 and had thereby fixed the market value of land at the rate of Rs.24.25 per square meters. The affected persons and/or the land owners of the aforesaid acquired lands of Village: Ubari had approached the Reference Court, which was registered as Land Acquisition Reference Cases No.65 of 2013 and allied matters. In the aforesaid proceedings, the affected persons have heavily relied upon Market Valuation Committee Report at Exhibit 15, the nature of the lands, fertility of the lands and other relevant material and agitated before the Reference Court. The Reference Court had noticed the relevant details of issuance of Notification under Section 4 base as against the price, which was fixed at Rs.24.25 per square meters. The Reference Court further noticed that there was no difference of the Notifications issued by the concerned Authority and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, accepted the case of the affected persons to the extent by giving rise of 10% every year. The Reference Court further noticed that the lands acquired were falling in the rural area and there was no major developments in surrounding Talukas during this period. Accordingly, the Reference Court had Page 22 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined determined the increase in market value of land every year mainly referring and relying upon the subsequent Rs.500.75 awarded in the subsequent Notification issued for acquiring the lands for the same purpose from 09.10.2015. In the present case, all the subject parcel of lands are in the nature of agricultural lands and, therefore, considering the market value in the case, 30% deduction requires to be considered as all the parcel of lands are agricultural lands. Considering the market value as suggested by the District Market Valuation Committee at Rs.525/- per square meters from which 30% development charges is required to be deducted and after deduction of 30% towards area of the land, it should be considered as 10% as the District Market Valuation Committee has considered the subsequent Notification dated 09.10.2015 and after five years and six months, if the appropriate deduction of 7.5% is deducted, then the following calculation is to be made:-
Less Rs.525.00 Price as per Exhit 15 per square meter Rs.157.50 According to the type of land (30% of Rs.5/-)
--------------
Rs.367.50
Less Rs.052.50 Are of land (10% of Rs.5/-)
--------------
Rs.315.50
Less Rs.130.00 Price reduction as per 5 years - 6 months
-------------- (Rs.315/- at 7.5% per annum)
Rs.185.00 The said amount is considered to be the
-------------- market value(per square meter) of the
acquired land
Less Rs. 24.25 Amount as per the award at Exhibit 33 (per
Page 23 of 28
Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025
undefined
square meter)
Rs.160.75 The claimants are entitled to receive more
than the said amount as compensation (per
square meter)
11. In view of the above, there is clearly five years gap and, therefore, the deduction at the rate of 7.5% the amount comes to Rs.130/- per square meters for five years. Thus, the total market value of the acquired lands is finally determined is Rs.185/- per square meters. Considering the facts, the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded a sum of Rs.24.25 per square meters and affected persons of the Land Acquisition Cases are declared entitled to the market value at the rate of 160.75 per square meters followed by consequential benefits of solatium and interest.
12. In the present appeals, as per the say of learned counsel appearing for the appellant, many land owners have accepted the amount of compensation awarded by the Reference Court. It is also contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the trial Court, while accepting the Market Valuation Committee Report, has committed serious error of the facts and law by disbelieving the award passed in Sujalam Sufalam Canal Project wherein the government land acquired in Village: Ubari and on the aforesaid base, the price as determined by the Reference Court has been followed in the Reference Case and allied matters in the present group of appeals, which is illegal and erroneous. In view of the above I am of the opinion that in Page 24 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined absence of any sale instances brought on record or any other cogent and relevant material produced by both the sides in the present acquisition proceedings, the Reference Court has rightly referred and relied upon Exhibit 15 while referring the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and no error can be found with the approach of the Reference Court in relying upon the decisions of this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court, for the determination of the market value of the lands in respect of the Village: Ubari. It is worthwhile to mention that the Notification under Section 4 of the Act in all the cases is dated 25.03.2010 and, therefore, the Reference Court has rightly relied upon the Market Valuation Committee Report at Exhibit 15 and in support of the same, the Reference Court has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court while assessing the market value of Village: Ubari at Rs.185/- per square meters out of which the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded Rs.24.25 per square meters, which comes to Rs.160.75 per square meters. Hence, the market value determined by the Reference Court for Village: Ubari is not required to be interfered with.
13. In the case of Rajput Devjibhai Jethabhai (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Officer vs. Kanbi Ravataji Lumbaji passed in First Appeal No. 669 of 2019 and allied matters Page 25 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held and observed in para 14 and 15 as under:-
"14. We have considered the ratio laid down and the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions. It is found out that the principles governing determination of market value of lands acquired are well- settled and at the time of determination of the compensation, the Honble Supreme Court issued certain directions as regard the the methods of valuation to be considered i.e. (1) opinion of experts, (2) the prices paid within a reasonable time in bonafide transactions of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or of the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar advantages and (3) a number of years' purchase of the actual or immediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. Therefore valuation made by the Valuation Committee can be a valid basis for the Reference Court in deciding the valuation of the land for the purpose of awarding compensation, subject to any change in the nature of the land, character etc. If the impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court is examined in light of the aforesaid observations and discussions, it appears to us that there is no error committed by the Reference Court in relying upon the price fixed for allotment of the land for the public purpose of Spreading Canal of Sujalam Safalam, but the Reference Court has committed error in not considering the aspect that the valuation as was made of the land in question on 20.05.2004 and the said valuation is to be considered, keeping in view the principles, as observed herein above and the Reference Court has also totally lost sight of in not considering the deduction to be made in the nature of the land allotted for non-agricultural purpose and the acquisition of agricultural land in the present case.
15. From the facts of the case, as stated above, it is found out that it is the case of the original claimants that the Valuation Committee has fixed the valuation of the Government land on 20.05.2004, whereas the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 30.06.2004 i.e. after the fixation of the valuation of the land by the Valuation Committee and, hence, they are entitled for additional compensation, for which, reliance is put upon the decision of this Court in case of Patel Haribhai Manilal (supra) as well as in case of Amaji Mohanji Thakore (supra) and though the aforesaid facts have been pointed out Page 26 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined before the Reference Court, it has not been considered and 40% deduction was made instead of 20%, which the original claimants are entitled for. We have gone through the record and proceeding and found out that the Reference Court has considered the report dated 20.05.2004 of the Valuation Committee. It is found out that the Reference Court has correctly evaluated the the report of the Valuation Committee but at the time of considering the amount, 40% amount is deducted from the said amount mentioned in the report solely on the count that in identical matter in case of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. delivered in First Appeal Nos.2832 to 2843 of 2006, the Division Bench of this Court has deducted 40% amount from the price fixed by the competent authority. It is found out from the record that in the said matter, the acquired land was situated in outskirt of the city area, whereas the present land, which is acquired by the acquiring body, is situated within the center of the city and as per the evidence led by the original claimants, surrounding and vicinity area of the acquired land is well developed area and in future, the Government need not have to spend any amount for the development of the said area, therefore, basic price value of the said land is on higher side, therefore, the deduction is required to be made 20% instead of 40%. We have gone through the record and proceedings and found out that the land, which was acquired by the acquiring body, is small plot and situated within the center of the city, therefore, we are of the opinion that the original claimants are entitled for 20% deduction instead of 40% deduction."
14. In view of the aforesaid observation and decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, I do not find any error in the award, which may warrant interference in the present appeals. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merits in the appeals. I am of the opinion that there is no any infirmity or illegality committed by the Reference court and, therefore, appeals as well as all cross-objections require to be dismissed.
Page 27 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/FA/1351/2018 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/07/2025 undefined
15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the appeals are hereby dismissed. Registry is directed to transmit back the record and proceedings to the concerned Court forthwith.
16. In view of the dismissal of the appeals, the cross-objections shall stand dismissed. Pending Civil Applications stand disposed of accordingly. The interim relief, if any, granted earlier in Civil Applications shall stand vacated forthwith. The Nazir of the concerned Court is directed to release and disburse the amount lying in the Fixed Deposit Receipts to be paid to the claimants by verifying their bank details through RTGS / NEFT.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) V.R. PANCHAL Page 28 of 28 Uploaded by V.R. PANCHAL(HC00171) on Mon Jul 07 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jul 07 22:36:47 IST 2025