Gujarat High Court
Executive Engineer/General Manager vs Desai (Rabari) Pirabhai Dhudabhai on 14 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4181 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 328 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4181 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4182 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4184 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4185 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4186 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4187 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4188 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4189 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4190 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4191 of 2017
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4192 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 323 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4192 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 330 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4193 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 331 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4194 of 2017
With
R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 324 of 2022
In
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4195 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Sd/-
Page 1 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
DESAI (RABARI) PIRABHAI DHUDABHAI & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
A R ROCKEY(7592) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR. HARDEEP L MAHIDA(7112) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
Date : 14/08/2025
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 24.03.2017 passed by the
learned 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Deesa, District:
Banaskantha in Land Acquisition Reference No.75 of
2012 (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.157/- 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.
Page 2 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the
agriculture lands of respondents – original claimants
situated at Village Paladi, Taluka: Deesa, District
Banaskantha have been permanently acquired for the
purpose of constructing new broad gauze railway line of
Patan – Bhildi vide Land Acquisition Case No. 4 of 2009.
For the purpose of acquisition, the award has been
declared as per rate of Rs. 24.25 per square meter on
11.02.2011 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. 26,
approach road and road land etc. In respect of these
lands, the award of Rs. 431 per square meter following
the rates of year 2015 as per exhibit 21 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
Page 3 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
transactions. At the time of hearing, claimants have not
produced any single documents to 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 and after framing the issues and
after considering the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in
cases of O. Janardhan Reddy vs. Special Deputy
Collector reported in 1994 6 SCC 456, The General
Manager, Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs.
Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel and Anr. reported in
2008 0 SCC 1154, Trishala Jain and Anr. vs. State of
Uttarachal and Anr. reported in 2011(6) SCC 47,
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kashiram (dead) by
L.Rs. reported in 2010(14) SCC 506 and Prabhakar
Ragunath Patil and Ors vs. State of Maharashtra
reported in 2010 (13) SCC 104, the learned Judge has
partly allowed the reference and directed the
respondents to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.157/-
per square meter for the acquired agricultural land
considering the rate of Rs.431/- 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. 75/2012 to 89/2012Page 4 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
Sr L.A.R. Survey Acquired Square Amount Total
No No. number land H.R. meter per amount
. Sq.Mtr.
1 75/2012 2/4 P1 00-25-46 2546 132.75 3,37,981.50
2 76/2012 2/4 P 2 00-24-88 2488 132.75 3,30,282
3 77/2012 2/3 00-30-77 3077 132.75 4,08,471.75
4 78/2012 2/1 00-28-71 2871 132.75 3,81,125.25
5 79/2012 22/1/2 00-01-38 138 132.75 18,319.50
6 80/2012 3A/4 P1 00-33-37 3337 132.75 4,42,986.75
00-02-02 202 26,815.50
—————-
4,69,802.25
7 81/2012 3A/2 00-14-40 1440 132.75 1,91,160.00
Paiki 1
8 82/2012 7 P1 00-01-31 131 132.75 17,390.25
9 83/2012 6 00-28-50 2850 132.75 3,78,337.50
10 84/2012 5/3 00-36-53 3653 132.75 4,84,935.75
11 85/2012 5/4 00-05-06 506 132.75 67,171.50
12 86/2012 5/1/P2 00-09-69 969 132.75 1,28,634.75
13 87/2012 5/2 00-36-69 3669 132.75 4,87,059.75
14 88/2012 12 00-24-40 2440 132.75 3,23,910
15 89/2012 13/P1 00-28-96 2896 132.75 3,84,444
3. Heard Ms.Archana U Amin, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, Mr.Jinesh Kapadia, learned
counsel appearing for respondents and Ms.Roshni Patel,
learned Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent
No.2 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.431/- 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
Page 5 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
the land prevailing in the year 2015 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 21, valuation
of the lands has been done by the District Valuation
Committee on 29.06.2015 while the notification under
Section 4 pertains to the acquisition of land is
30.03.2010. It is submitted that in Exhibit 21, 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
Page 6 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
market price of the acquired lands in the year 2010, the
learned Judge has allowed the references and awarded
Rs.157 – Rs.24.25 paise and has ordered to pay Rs.132.75
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 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.
Page 7 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
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.157/- per square meter towards
compensation based upon the document at Exhibit 21 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 21 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 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.
Page 8 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents-
claimants 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 31.03.2010. It is submitted that the claimants have
relied on the District Valuation Committee Report at
Exhibit-21 wherein the price has been decided at the
request of railway for allotment of 19,308 square meters
land of Village Paladi. It is submitted that the Collector
wrote a letter at Exhibit 21 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 17.03.2009, which has been
admitted by appellant in their cross examination and
appellant has not produced any documentary evidence
except 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
Page 9 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
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-claimants 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
30.03.2010 and valuation has been decided on
29.06.2015 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.4772-4773 of 2025 delivered on 03.04.2025, it is
submitted that the Court reversed the deduction at the
Page 10 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
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 21 wherein over and
above the price fixed, an additional amount was levied for
conversion for Non-agricultural purpose and, therefore, it
is proved that the amount as decided at exhibit 21 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 19,308 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 21 evaluation
and, therefore, the Reference Court has erred in
Page 11 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
deducting 10% on the ground of smallness. It is
submitted that the interest of justice will be served if 20%
deduction may be made instead of 40%. It is submitted
that the appeals being meritless deserve to be dismissed.
5.1 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-
claimants 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.157/- 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
Page 12 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
contrary to the settled principles of law and the deduction
difference towards the time gap between the 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.2 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
Page 13 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
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 the Reference
Court included the District Valuation Committee Report
at Exhibit 21. 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.
Page 14 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
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. 75 of 2012 (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
Reference Court in Land Reference Acquisition Case No.
75 of 2012 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 30.03.2010. 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
11.02.2011 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: Paladi had approached the
Reference Court, which was registered as Land
Acquisition Reference Cases No.75 of 2012 and allied
matters. In the aforesaid proceedings, the affected
persons have heavily relied upon Market Valuation
Committee Report at Exhibit 21, 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
Page 15 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
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 determined the
increase in market value of land every year mainly
referring and relying upon the subsequent Rs.431/-
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.431/- 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
Page 16 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
the appropriate deduction of 7.5% is deducted, then the
following calculation is to be made:-
Less Rs.431.00 Price as per Exhibit 21 per square
Rs.130.00 meter
————– According to the type of land (30% of
Rs.301.00 Rs.431-)
Less Rs.043.00 Are of land (10% of Rs.431/-)
————–
Rs.258.00
Less Rs.101.00 Price reduction as per 5 years – 3
————– months
(Rs.258/- at 7.5% per annum)
Rs.157.00 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 square meter)
Rs.132.75 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.101/- per square meters for five
years. Thus, the total market value of the acquired lands
is finally determined is Rs.157/- 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 132.75
per square meters followed by consequential benefits of
solatium and interest.
Page 17 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
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:
Paladi 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 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 21 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: Paladi.
It is worthwhile to mention that the Notification under
Section 4 of the Act in all the cases is dated 30.03.2010
and, therefore, the Reference Court has rightly reliedPage 18 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
upon the Market Valuation Committee Report at Exhibit
21 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: Paladi at Rs.157/- per square
meters out of which the Special Land Acquisition Officer
has awarded Rs.24.25 per square meters, which comes to
Rs.132.75 per square meters. Hence, the market value
determined by the Reference Court for Village: Paladi 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 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
Page 19 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
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 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
Page 20 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
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.
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.
Page 21 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/FA/4181/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/08/2025
undefined
16. Accordingly, the cross-objections shall also 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.
Sd/-
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)
SURESH SOLANKI
Page 22 of 22
Uploaded by SURESH SOLANKI(HC00208) on Fri Aug 22 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Aug 22 23:36:21 IST 2025