Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Executive Engineer/General Manager - Appellant
Versus
Waghela Balabhai Vahaji & Ors. - Respondent
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
Decided On : 04-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction and facts of land acquisition. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding compensation rates. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. response to compensation arguments. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's consideration of evidence and legal standards. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. determination of market value and legal reasoning. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. conclusion and disposal of appeals. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
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 2nd 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 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 OfÏcer 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 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 No. | L.A.R. No. | Survey number | Acquired land H.R. | Square meter | Amount per Sq.Mtr. | Total amount |
| 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 1/1 | 00-23-69 | 2369 | 160.75 | 3,80,816.75 |
| 6 | 70/2013 | 926 446/P1 | 00-00-02 00-56-97 | 2 5697 | 160.75 | 321.50 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 7/2 | 00-01-01 00-00-26 | 101 26 | 160.75 | 16235.75 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 |
| 1 | ||||||
The court upheld an enhanced land compensation rate reflecting market value, confirming reliance on established valuation methodologies and legal precedents in land acquisition cases.
Compensation for acquired land must be based on reliable valuation evidence, with deductions reflecting the nature of the land and consistent with judicial precedents.
The court upheld the Reference Court's valuation of agricultural land compensation, emphasizing reliance on expert opinions and valid market evidence in determining fair compensation under the Land A....
Compensation for land acquisition must be based on current market value, informed by recent sale transactions and relevant valuation reports.
Market value in land acquisition cases must reflect current assessments by expert committees rather than outdated valuations, ensuring fair compensation aligns with statutory requirements.
The court affirmed that expert committee valuations are essential in determining equitable market compensation in land acquisition cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
