Gujarat High Court
Harsh S/O Surendrakumar Malhotra vs Shashwat Home Llp on 3 March, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1688 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1976 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2027 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
√
==========================================================
HARSH S/O SURENDRAKUMAR MALHOTRA & ORS.
Versus
SHASHWAT HOME LLP & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ANURAG BISARIA, ADVOCATE with LOVE S MODI(8362) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,3.1,3.2,3.3,3.4
G H VIRK(7392) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR MIHIR JOSHI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR SALIL M THAKORE(5821) for
the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 03/03/2025
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Anurag Bisaria with learned Advocate
Mr. Love S. Modi for the petitioners, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir
Joshi with learned Advocate Mr. Salil M. Thakore for the respondent
No.1, learned AGP Mr. J.K. Shah for the respondent No.2 and learned
Advocate Mr. G.H. Virk for the respondent No.4.
Page 1 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
2. Since all the three petitions challenge separate but identical orders
passed by the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Authority, Ahmedabad (hereinafter to be referred as the “LARRA”) in
three separate applications preferred in three different Land Acquisition
References and since all these petitions have been heard simultaneously,
present common order is passed in all the three petitions.
3. For clarity of facts, it is required to be mentioned that Special Civil
Application No. 1688 of 2025 impugns order passed by the LARRA,
dated 29.10.2024 below Exh.49 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 518
of 2022, which was pertaining to parcel of land admeasuring 7523 sq.
mtrs. bearing Survey Nos. 19/1/1, 19/1/2, 20/1 and 38/3, situated at
village Chenpur, Taluka Ghatlodiya, District Ahmedabad. Special Civil
Application No.1976 of 2025 impugns order passed by the LARRA,
dated 29.10.2024 below Exh. 36 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 18 of
2023, pertains to parcel of land admeasuring 5757 sq. mtrs. bearing
Survey Nos. 19/1/1, 19/1/2, 20/1, 37/2, 38/2 and 38/3, situated at village
Chenpur, Taluka Ghatlodiya, District Ahmedabad. Special Civil
Application No.2027 of 2025 impugns order passed by the LARRA,
dated 29.10.2024 below Exh. 49 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 480
of 2022, pertains to parcel of land admeasuring 89346 sq. mtrs. bearing
Page 2 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
Survey No. 20/1, situated at village Chenpur, Taluka Ghatlodiya, District
Ahmedabad.
3.1 The LARRA vide the orders impugned has rejected applications
preferred by the petitioners herein for impleadment in the Land
Acquisition References referred to hereinabove.
4. Facts in brief as much as relevant for the purpose of deciding the
petitions being as under :
4.1 One M/s Shashwat Home Private Limited (hereinafter to be
referred as “SHPL”), a company incorporated under the provisions of the
Companies Act, 1956, had purchased various parcels of land in total
admeasuring 432536 sq. mtrs. vide sale deeds dated 22.11.2006. The said
SHPL was later converted into a Limited Liability Partnership in
accordance with the provisions of the Limited Liability Partnership Act,
2008, in the month of August, 2013 and came to be known as Shashwat
Home LLP, respondent No.1 herein (hereinafter to be referred to as
“Shashwat LLP”.
4.2 It appears that all assets and liabilities of the erstwhile company,
SHPL, had been vested into Shashwat LLP, and whereas the petitioners
as well as their late mother being partners of the said Shashwat LLP, were
Page 3 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
referred to as the Malhotra Group. It appears that the predecessor of the
respondent No.1, SHPL, had before it had been formed, applied for
conversion of the entire land purchased by it from industrial NA to
regular NA, and whereas the Collector, Ahmedabad, had initially
permitted conversion of 80% of the land admeasuring approximately
342779 sq. mtrs. and later permitted the conversion from industrial NA to
regular NA of the remaining land. It appears that the SHPL had sought
for development permission from the respondent No.4 – the Ahmedabad
Municipal Corporation, and whereas in November, 2012, the Corporation
had called upon the SHPL to submit its consent for deduction and
surrender of 40% of the land, in terms of the proposed Town Planning
Scheme, whereas the remaining 60% would be allotted to the SHPL as
final plots. After the respondent No.1 had been formed, the respondent
No.1 had submitted consent letter for deduction of 40% of the entire land
purchased by it and whereas on 08.05.2014, the possession of the said
40% deducted land was handed over by the respondent No.1 to the
corporation. Later on, the Corporation had published Draft Town
Planning Scheme No. 66A (Ranip-Chenpur-Kali) which included the
lands purchased by the SHPL, later held by the respondent No.1 which
Draft Town Planning Scheme had been sanctioned by the State
Government vide Notification dated 09.07.2018. The respondent No.1
Page 4 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
was allotted final plots admeasureing 259500 sq. mtrs. by the Corporation
in terms of the Town Planning Scheme.
4.3 Later on, the petitioners had sought to retire from the respondent
No.1 and whereas a Retirement-cum-Settlement Deed dated 30.07.2016
had been entered into between the petitioners and the remaining 17
partners. The respondent No.1 – Shashwat LLP, had also singed the said
deed as a confirming party. It appears that the said Retirement-cum-
Settlement Deed inter alia set out the entitlement of the petitioners as
retiring partners to 20% share in the land comprising converted and
unconverted land on pro rata basis. It appears that a further Memorandum
of Understanding had been entered into between the parties on
09.08.2016, and by virtue of the Retirement-cum-Settlement Deed, the
petitioners were entitled to retirement consideration at the rate of 41033
sq. mtrs. and in terms of the later MoU, the petitioners were deemed to be
entitled to a further 10573 sq. mtrs.
4.4 It appears that after the deeds as above, the State Government had
acquired some part of the land held by the respondent No.1 including
land conveyed in favour of the petitioners pursuant to Retirement-cum-
Settlement Deed under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Page 5 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
Act, 2013 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
It also appears that the respondent No.1 and a nominee of the petitioners
have challenged the awards before the appropriate authority.
4.5 It further appears that pursuant to the acquisition of the land by the
State Government, the Town Planning Scheme had been substantially
reconstituted by excluding the acquired parcel of land admeasuring
131175 sq. mtrs., approximately, along with the land which had resulted
in proportionate reduction of land which had been deducted under the
Town Planning Scheme by around 52470 sq. mtrs. It appears that
gravamen of the present petitioners is with regard to the said reduction of
the original reduction at the rate of 40% upon the reconstitution of the
Town Planning Scheme. It appears that the petitioners have filed an
application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
before the leaned Commercial Court, Ahmedabad being Commercial
CMA No. 13 of 2009, which is pending adjudication. It also appears that
the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 11 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, by preferring Arbitration Petition
No. 234 of 2024 for appointment of arbitrator for resolving the disputes,
which petition is also pending adjudication. In the meanwhile, the
petitioners have preferred impleadment applications in the land
Page 6 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
acquisition references referred to hereinabove, whereby the respondent
No. 1 has assailed the apportionment of compensation in favour of the
AMC, which application for impleadment came to be rejected vide
common but separate orders referred to hereinabove, which are assailed
before this Court in these petitions.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Anurag Bisaria with learned Advocate Mr.
Love Modi for the petitioners would submit that the LARRA had
completely erred in rejecting the applications for impleadment which
were preferred in terms of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code
(for short “CPC“), more particularly since the petitioners were persons
interested in terms of Section 3(x) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. It is
submitted that the Section 3(x) inter alia envisages that any person
claiming interest in the compensation on account of the land being
acquired under the Act, would be a person interested and according to the
learned Advocate, the term ‘person interested’ is to be liberally
constructed, more particularly a person interested would be a necessary
party in a proceeding with regard to apportionment of compensation. It is
submitted that the petitioners ought to have been joined since the
petitioners had sought impleadment in their individual capacity and not as
partners of the LLP Firm. It is submitted that the petitioners having
Page 7 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
interest in the land in question, ought to have been joined in their
individual capacity. It is submitted that the LARRA has committed a
grave error by entering into the merits of the issue, more particularly
when the only aspect which was required to be adjudicated was as to
whether the petitioners were necessary and/or proper parties. It is further
submitted that the LARRA had completely exceeded its jurisdiction in
passing the impugned orders since substantive aspects have been dealt
with by the LARRA, which were completely beyond the scope of the
proceedings. It is further submitted that the LARRA had completely erred
in appreciating Clause 2.1 and 2.4 of the Retirement-cum-Settlement
Deed dated 30.07.2016, since the retirement consideration has yet not
devolved upon the petitioners entirely.
5.1 It is further submitted that though there was no application by the
respondent No.1, yet, the LARRA had gravely erred in passing the
impugned orders while exercising powers akin to Section 8 of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is further submitted that the
LARRA has erred in misconstruing Sections 64 and 76 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 2013, more particularly according to the learned
Advocate, Section 76 read with Sections 64, 67 and 60(2) of the Land
Acquisition Act, 2013, empowers the LARRA to consider interest of
Page 8 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
persons objecting to apportionment of compensation or adjudicate
disputes arising therefrom. It is further submitted that the observation
made by the LARRA that the authority i.e. the LARRA could only decide
such dispute upon a reference being made to it by the Collector and no
party can directly approach the authority, is in direct violation of the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Shashwat Home
LLP Vs. State of Gujarat, dated 16.09.2022 in Special Civil Application
No. 18222 of 2022, whereby this Court had directed impleadment of the
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation in a pending reference with a specific
direction of not being technical. Learned Advocate Mr. Bisaria would
thus request this Court to set aside orders passed by the LARRA and
direct impleadment of the present petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the present petitions are opposed by learned
Senior Advocate Mr. Mihir Joshi with learned Advocate Mr. Salil
Thakore for the respondent No.1, who would submit, at the outset, that
the petitioners having retired from the respondent No.1-Shashwat LLP in
the year 2016 have no right to be impleaded in the proceedings of the
LLP, more particularly submitting that the LLP is a body corporate like a
company and is capable of owning property on its own and that since the
LLP is owner of the property, a retired partner of the LLP could not claim
Page 9 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
to be entitled to join a proceeding with regard to assets belonging to the
LLP. Learned Senior Advocate would further submit that the term
‘person interested’ as per Section 3(x) of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013,
has to be read along with Section 64 of the said Act, which inter alia
qualifies the term ‘person interested’ as being one who has not accepted
the award. It is submitted that person interested could only be construed
in terms of the qualification in the said Section and not as any person who
has an interest in the LLP. Learned Senor Advocate would draw the
attention of this Court to Sections 60, 67 and 64 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 2013 and submit that the LARRA would have the jurisdiction to
adjudicate a reference made to it under Section 64. Section 64 inter alia
circumscribes a person applying being a person who is interested and
who has not accepted the award. Furthermore, Section 67 restricts the
scope of inquiry to consideration of interest of persons affected by the
objection. It is submitted in this regard that as such, no person can
directly approach the authority for redressal of his grievance and whereas
the LARRA has the jurisdiction to decide a reference which has been
made by the Collector under Section 64 of the Land Acquisition Act,
2013. It is thus submitted that there cannot be any direct impleadment in a
pending reference. Reliance is placed by the learned senior counsel on
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ram Prakash
Page 10 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
Agarwal and another Vs. Gopi Krishan and Others, reported in
(2013) 11 SCC 296.
6.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi would further submit that
insofar as the reliance being placed, by the learned Advocate for the
petitioners, on the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by the Division Bench
of this Court, the same is not a judgment laying down any legal principle,
rather the order has been passed on a broad consensus between the
parties.
6.2 It is further submitted that as such, the petitioners have deliberately
not produced the Retirement-cum-Settlement Deed, which inter alia
contain clauses which establish that the petitioners are not entitled to
anything beyond retirement consideration. It is submitted that as such,
while the petitioners have reproduced Clause 3.1 of the Retirement-cum-
Settlement Deed in the petitions, they have not produced the later clauses,
which inter alia reveal that the petitioners are not entitled to flat 20% of
the land, rather the petitioners are entitled to retirement consideration as
has been agreed upon. It is further submitted that while the petitioners
have been given 20% of the land, since the valuation of the land had been
higher than the entitlement of the petitioners, therefore the petitioners as
retiring partners were required to pay differential amount to the
Page 11 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
respondent- Shashwat LLP.
6.3 It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate that the
LARRA has neither exceeded its jurisdiction nor given any finding on the
merits beyond what had been submitted since it is the case of the
petitioners that they were entitled to 20% of share in the LLP’s assets
upon their retirement, and thus consequently entitled to share in the
compensation, therefore the LARRA has given findings in such context
and whereas having raised findings in the first place, it would not be open
for the petitioners to turn back and complain that there has been an
adjudication on the submissions/merits. It is submitted by the learned
Senior Advocate that as such, the Retirement-cum-Settlement Deed dated
30.07.2016 clearly reveals that the retiring persons would not have any
right beyond what has been stated in the said deed. The deed also
provides for the same to take effect upon conveyance being transferred
which had been done as per the MoU on 09.08.2016. It is submitted that
once the partners i.e. the petitioners have retired from the LLP, they
cannot stake a claim to any rights and entitlements on the assets of the
LLP. Thus submitting, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Joshi would request
that the LARRA having passed the well reasoned decisions, this Court
may not interfere in the impugned decisions.
Page 12 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
7. In rejoinder, learned Advocate Mr. Bisaria for the petitioners
would draw the attention of this Court to Clause 3.2 of the Retirement-
cum-Settlement Deed and would submit that the entitlement of the
petitioners is to 20% of the land in question. It is submitted that the Land
Acquisition Act, 2013, more particularly Section 76 thereof, empowers
the authority to decide a dispute upon being referred a dispute with regard
to apportionment. It is submitted that since such power is expressly
vested with the authority i.e. the LARRA, the same should have been
exercised. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate Mr. Bisaria that
if the petitioners are not impleaded, then they would be completely
remediless. Thus submitting, the learned Advocate would request this
Court to set aside orders passed by the LARRA and direct impleadment
of the petitioners.
8. Having heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and
having perused the documents on record, to this Court, the following
aspects being relevant for adjudication, which are undisputed, are
reproduced hereinbelow for benefit.
(i) The respondent No.1 has preferred the above mentioned
Land Acquisition References as applicable to each of the petitions,
more particularly inter alia claiming compensation of the land,
Page 13 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
which had been surrendered to the Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation as the 40% deduction, being reverted upon the
reconstitution of the Town Planning Scheme following the decision
to acquire the land in question.
(ii) The petitioners claim that they are entitled to 20% share in
the land which was originally deducted, later on reverting back
upon reconstitution of the Town Planning Scheme.
(iii) The petitioners had directly approached the LARRA, for
impleadment in the references preferred by the respondent No.1.
(iv) The claim of the petitioners for substantive benefit as well as
for impleadment being objected to by the respondent No.1 on the
ground that upon retirement from the respondent No.1, the
petitioners would not be entitled to any land or a corresponding
value belonging to the LLP.
(v) Impleadment is also opposed on the ground of the petitioners
not approaching the Collector either under Section 64 or Section 76
of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
(vi) The LARRA having rejected the impleadment applications
Page 14 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
on the ground that the petitioners have availed of alternative legal
remedies as well as on the ground of non-invocation of Section 64
and Section 76 of the Land Acquisition act, 2013.
9. Having appreciated the conspectus of the dispute, to this Court it
would appear that the petitioners had raised a substantive issue i.e. with
regard to their claim for entitlement for a part of the compensation to the
land which has reverted back and a procedural issue as to whether the
LARRA should have entertained their applications for impleadment. To
this Court, it would appear that the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, is a
complete code in itself and whereas, it clearly lays down the power, the
scope of proceedings and the initiation of the proceedings before the
authority. Sections 60, 64 and 76 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 being
relevant for the present purpose are reproduced hereinbelow for benefit.
“60. Powers of Authority and procedure before it. – (1) The
Authority shall, for the purposes of its functions under this Act,
shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court under the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) in respect of the
following matters, namely: –
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any
person and examining him on oath;
(b) discovery and production of any document or other
material object producible as evidence;
(c) receiving evidence on affidavits; Page 15 of 25 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025 undefined (d) requisitioning of any public record; (e) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses; (f) reviewing its decisions, directions and orders; (g) any other matter which may be prescribed.
(2) The Authority shall have original jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon every reference made to it under section 64.
(3) The Authority shall not be bound by the procedure laid down
in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) but shall be
guided by the principles of natural justice and subject to the other
provisions of this Act and of any rules made thereunder, the
Authority shall have the power to regulate its own procedure.
(4) The Authority shall, after receiving reference under section
64 and after giving notice of such reference to all the parties
concerned and after affording opportunity of hearing to all parties,
dispose of such reference within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of such reference and make an award accordingly.
(5) The Authority shall arrange to deliver copies of the award to
the parties concerned within a period of fifteen days from the date
of such award.”
“64. Reference to Authority.-(1) Any person interested who has
not accepted the award may, by written application to the
Collector, require that the matter be referred by the Collector for
the determination of the Authority, as the case may be, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of the
compensation, the person to whom it is payable, the rights of
Rehabilitation and Resettlement under Chapters V and VI or the
apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested:
Provided that the Collector shall, within a period of thirty
days from the date of receipt of application, make a reference to the
appropriate Authority:
Page 16 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
Provided further that where the Collector fails to make such
reference within the period so specified, the applicant may apply to
the Authority, as the case may be, requesting it to direct the
Collector to make the reference to it within a period of thirty days.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which objection to
the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made-
(a) if the person making it was present or represented
before the Collector at the time when he made his award,
within six weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the
notice from the Collector under section 21, or within six
months from the date of the Collector’s award, whichever
period shall first expire:
Provided further that the Collector may entertain an
application after the expiry of the said period, within a further
period of one year, if he is satisfied that there was sufficient cause
for not filing it within the period specified in the first proviso.”
“76. Dispute as to apportionment.-When the amount of
compensation has been settled, if any dispute arises as to the
apportionment of the same or any part thereof, or as to the persons
to whom the same or any part thereof is payable, the Collector may
refer such disputes to the Authority.”
10. Section 60(2) inter alia lays down that the authority would have
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon every reference made to it under Section
64. Section 64 inter alia lays down that upon a person who has not
Page 17 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
accepted the award writing to the Collector requiring the Collector to
refer the issue for the determination of the authority, insofar as it relates
to the present petitions, to whom the compensation is payable, or the
apportionment of compensation etc., then the Collector would make a
reference to the authority. Section 76 envisages that upon the amount of
compensation being settled, if any dispute arises as regards
apportionment thereof, then such dispute may be referred by the Collector
to the authority.
11. The Land Acquisition Act, 2013 does not envisage a person
directly approaching the authority and whereas the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate for
the respondent No.1 in case of Ram Prakash Agarwal (supra) laying
down the law insofar as the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was concerned,
and which, to this Court, is equally applicable to the present Act,
Paragraphs No. 24 to 27 being relevant for the present purpose are
reproduced hereinbelow for benefit.
“24. The said case is required to be examined from another
angle. Undoubtedly, the respondents did not make any
application either under Section 18 or Section 30 of the 1894
Act to the Land Acquisition Collector. The jurisdiction of
the Reference Court, vis-à-vis “persons interested” has been
explained by this Court in Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdhry
[(2006) 12 SCC 300 : AIR 2007 SC 215] , holding that thePage 18 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
Reference Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain
any application of pro interesse suo, or in the nature thereof.
The Court held as under : (SCC p. 304, para 19)“19. The Act is a complete code by itself. It provides
for remedies not only to those whose lands have been
acquired but also to those who claim the awarded
amount or any apportionment thereof. A Land
Acquisition Judge derives its jurisdiction from the
order of reference. It is bound thereby. His jurisdiction
is to determine adequacy or otherwise of the amount
of compensation paid under the award made by the
Collector.”
Thus holding that : (SCC p. 304, para 19)
“19. … It is not within his domain to entertain any
application of pro interesse suo or in the nature
thereof.”
The plea of the appellant therein, stating that the title dispute
be directed to be decided by the Reference Court itself, since
the appellant was not a person interested in the award, was
rejected by this Court, observing that the Reference Court
does not have the power to enter into an application under
Order 1 Rule 10 CPC.
25. In Ajjam Linganna v. Land Acquisition Officer
[(2002) 9 SCC 426] this Court made observations to the
effect that it is not open to the parties to apply directly to the
Reference Court for impleadment, and to seek enhancement
under Section 18 for compensation.
26. In Prayag Upnivesh Awas Evam Nirman Sahkari
Samiti Ltd. v. Allahabad Vikas Pradhikaran [(2003) 5 SCC
561] , this Court held as under : (SCC p. 565, para 7)
“7. It is well established that the Reference Court gets
jurisdiction only if the matter is referred to it under
Section 18 or Section 30 of the Act by the Land
Page 19 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
Acquisition Officer and that the civil court has got the
jurisdiction and authority only to decide the objections
referred to it. The Reference Court cannot widen the
scope of its jurisdiction or decide matters which are
not referred to it.”
While deciding the said case, the Court placed reliance on
the judgments in Parmatha Nath Mullick v. Secy. of State for
India in Council [(1929-30) 57 IA 100 : (1930) 31 LW 431 :
AIR 1930 PC 64] and Mohd. Hasnuddin v. State of
Maharashtra [(1979) 2 SCC 572 : AIR 1979 SC 404] . (See
also Kothamasu Kanakarathamma v. State of A.P. [AIR
1965 SC 304] )
27. It is evident from the above, that a person who has not
made an application before the Land Acquisition Collector,
for making a reference under Section 18 or 30 of the 1894
Act, cannot get himself impleaded directly before the
Reference Court.”
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court refers to Section 18 and Section 30 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same are reproduced hereinbelow
for benefit.
“18. Reference to Court. – (1) Any person interested who
has not accepted the award may, by written application to
the Collector, require that the matter be referred by the
Collector for the determination of the Court, whether his
objection be to the measurement of the land, the amount of
the compensation, the person to whom it is payable, or the
apportionment of the compensation among the persons
interested.
(2) The application shall state the grounds on which
objection to the award is taken:
Provided that every such application shall be made-
Page 20 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
(a) if the person making it was present or represented before
the Collector at the time when he made his award, within six
weeks from the date of the Collector’s award;
(b) in other cases, within six weeks of the receipt of the
notice from the Collector under section 12, sub-section (2),
or within six months from the date of the Collector’s award,
whichever period shall first expire.”
“30. Dispute as to apportionment. – When the amount of
compensation has been settled under section 11, if any
dispute arises as to the apportionment of the same or any
part thereof, or as to the persons to whom the same or any
part thereof, is payable, the Collector may refer such dispute
to the decision of the Court.”
13. A plain reading of Sections 18 and 30 make it abundantly clear that
while Section 18 of the Old Act is relatable to Section 64 of the New Act,
albeit Section 64 expanding the ambit, whereas Section 30 of the Old Act
is relatable to Section 76 of the New Act. Thus, there could be no doubt
whatsoever that the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court though in
the context of the Old Act, hold good, even insofar as the New Act is
concerned.
14. Appreciated form the above perspective, it would appear that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has inter alia laid down that the authority did not
have any jurisdiction to entertain any an application of “pro interesse
suo” i.e. “according to his interest” or “to the extent of his interest”. In
Page 21 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
other words, the above term means permitting intervention of a third
party on the ground that the matter concerns his interest. The authority
deriving jurisdiction to decide an issue with regard to entitlement to
compensation and apportionment of compensation upon a reference,
according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the authority would not have
any power to enter into an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC,
which the petitioners had preferred, without any reference to the authority
as regards the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has in no uncertain
terms laid down that a person cannot get himself impleaded directly
before a reference court – LARRA in the present case, without
approaching the Collector for making a reference under Section 64 or
Section 76 as relatable to the New Act.
15. The law being explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, does not
brook any argument to the contrary.
16. To this Court, it would appear that the petitioners having directly
approaching the LARRA, without seeking for any reference either under
Section 64 or Section 76 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, the LARRA
was absolutely justified in rejecting the applications under Order 1 Rule
10 of the CPC.
Page 22 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
17. Insofar as the aspect of excess of jurisdiction etc., it would appear
that the LARRA was faced with applications where the applicants-
petitioners herein had inter alia tried to explain about their interest in the
land in question, more particularly the applications clearly containing
references to the Retirement-cum-Settlement Deed dated 30.07.2016 and
MoU dated 09.08.2016, was justified in referring to the said aspect while
rejecting the applications. While it would appear that the LARRA would
have been completely justified even if the applications of the petitioners
had been rejected only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction available with
it since no reference had been sought for by the petitioners under Sections
64 and 76 of the New Act, yet, it would appear that since various
contentions appear to have been raised before the LARRA, the LARRA
had deemed it appropriate to even adjudicate thereupon.
18. Having observed as above, to this Court, it would appear that
certain observations and directions are required to ensure that the
petitioners are neither left remediless nor should the petitioners be
prejudiced on account of the observations made by the LARRA. Such a
course of action is required, since it would appear that the some of the
observations of the LARRA, on the substantive merits of the aspect, were
not required though at the same time, this Court hastens to add that the
Page 23 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
same appears to be in context of submissions made in such regard by the
petitioners.
19. In view of the above, observations, discussion and conclusion, the
following directions are issued.
(i) The present petitions, challenging orders dated 29.10.2024 passed
by the LARRA, below Exh.49 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 518 of
2022, below Exh. 36 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 18 of 2023 and
below Exh. 49 in Land Acquisition Reference No. 480 of 2022, are
hereby rejected.
(ii) It would be open for the petitioners to approach the Collector
Ahmedabad, under Sections 64, 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, in terms of the above observations, if so advised.
(iii) If any such application is received by the Collector, Ahmedabad,
the same shall be decided by the Collector appropriately on its own
merits.
(iv) The Collector and the LARRA, as the case may be, in reference, if
referred by the Collector, shall take an independent decision in an
Page 24 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1688/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/03/2025
undefined
application/reference under Sections 64, 76 of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, without being influenced by any of the
observations made by the LARRA in its orders referred to hereinabove.
(v) Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent No.1 to contest the
application under Sections 64, 76 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013, which may be preferred by the petitioners and whereas all the
rights and contentions of all parties are kept open including the right of
the respondent No. 1 to question the locus of the petitioners. It is clarified
that the liberty granted to the petitioners may not be construed as this
Court having positively opined as regards the locus of the petitioners to
file such an application.
20. With the above observations and directions, the present petitions
are disposed of as rejected.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J)
BDSONGARA
Page 25 of 25
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri Mar 07 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Mar 08 00:20:59 IST 2025