Back
2024 Supreme(Guj) 577
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Devan M. Desai, J.
Special Land Acquisition Officer and Dy. Collector, Anand – Appellant
Versus
Patel Kaushikbhai Khushalbhai – Defendant
R/First Appeal No. 3341 of 2023 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 2 of 2023 R/First Appeal No. 3340 & 3348 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Adiyta Davda AGP
For the Defendant : Mr Amar D Mithani
The State cannot selectively challenge compensation awards in land acquisition cases; equitable treatment among claimants is required.
Headnote:(A) LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1894 - Sections 54, 18, 23(1)(a), 23(2), and 28(2) - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Section 96 - Appeal against judgment awarding compensation - Compensation for land acquisition was increased to Rs.900/- per sq. mtr. after considering relevant evidence; the appellant argued against the reduction and provided reasoning for deeming the initial compensation adequate, referencing various sale instances and assessments - Court concluded that the appellant’s challenge lacked merit based on principles of equitable treatment for similarly situated claimants. (Paras 6.1, 7, 7.2)
(B) Discrimination in Land Acquisition - The State cannot selectively accept or reject compensation awards across similar claims, reinforcing principles of fairness and non-discrimination. (Paras 7.1, 7.2)
Facts of the case:
The appellant State acquired land for highway construction, initially awarding compensation which was contested by the respondent seeking higher compensation under Section 18. The learned Judge later enhanced compensation based on market considerations.
Findings of Court:
The court supported the enhanced compensation of Rs.900/- per sq. mtr. and recognized equitable treatment among claimants.
Issues: Whether the appellant could challenge the compensation awarded when similar awards were accepted previously.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State cannot adopt a selective approach in compensation awards for similar claims, upholding the principle of equitable treatment as delineated in precedent.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural details of appeals (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. compensation awarded and contested (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments by the appellants and respondents (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. court's reasoning regarding equal treatment (Para 7) |
| 5. conclusion and directive for compensation payment (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER :
1. The present group of First Appeals are filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat through Special Land Acquisition Officer & Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Department, Collector Office, Anand, under Section 54 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) read with Section 96 of the CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE , 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code, 1908”) challenging the Judgment and Award dated 20.02.2020 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anand (hereinafter referred to as “the Judge”) in Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.81/2014, 82/2014 and 85/2014, whereby, the learned Judge partly allowed the Reference filed by the respondent herein.
2. Since all these First Appeals arise from the common Judgment and Award dated 20.02.2020, they are heard analogously and are being decided by this common Judgment. For the sake of brevity, the First Appeal No.3340 of 2023 is treated as lead matter.
3. The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as under :
3.1 It is the case of the appellants that, the lands situated at village: Vasad, Taluka, District: Anand were acquired for the public purpose of Six Lane Highway joining Bagodara-Vataman-Tarapur-Vasad and accordingly, the appellant No.2 herein had undertaken the entire legal process as prescribed in the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894. It is further the case of the appellants that, the Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on 18.05.2009, Notification under Section 6 of the Act was published on 31.12.2009 and Notification under Section 9 of the Act was also duly published and the hearing was held. Thereafter, in LAQ case No.1 of 2008, the Award under Section 11 of the Act was passed on 25.01.2012, whereby, the appellant No.2 awarded an amount of Rs.51/- per square meter as compensation for AB type land and Rs.80/- per square meter as compensation for CD type land respectively, the appellant authority granted 30% solatium as well as 12% price rise from the date of Notification under Section 4 of the Act till the date of Award. Being dissatisfied by the amount awarded, the present respondent (original claimant) filed reference under Section 18 of the Act seeking Rs.900/- per sq. mtr. as compensation.
3.2 It is the say of the appellants that, the land was acquired for public purpose for which the entire legal process was undertaken and Notification under Section 4 , 6 and 9 of the Act were published. The appellant No.2 herein had invited objections against the acquisition of lands for which hearing was held, the objections were raised by the interested parties, but no evidence were produced. The compensation under Section 11 of the Act was awarded in due diligence after considering 10 sale instances which were effected between the year 2004 and 2009 which range from Rs.23/- to Rs.112/- per square meter for the Jirayat (non-irrigated) Land. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had taken into consideration various other factors such as location, fertility of the land, crops and prospects of development of the village. The compensation awarded is just, proper and reasonable and the respondent has accepted the said amount of compensation awarded by the appellant No.2 under Section 11 of the Act.
3.3 It is further the case of the appellants that, against the aforesaid Award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent herein preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Act. The learned Judge registered the said land reference as Land Acquisition Reference Case No.79 of 2014. The other References arising out of the same Land Acquisition proceedings registered as Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos.77 of 2014, 79 of 2014 and 81 of
