The court affirmed that expert committee valuations are essential in determining equitable market compensation in land acquisition cases.

ORDER :

1. The issue involved in these appeals is common and hence, both the appeals are being heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Both the captioned appeals are arising out of the common judgment and award dated 31.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment”) passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar, District Sabarkantha in Land Acquisition Reference Case no. 2 of 2012 to Land Acquisition Reference Case no. 31 of 2012 whereby, the references under section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 1894”), has been rejected and thus, the market value determined by the Land Acquisition Officer under section 11, came to be confirmed. Hence the captioned appeals by the claimants.

3. Mr.RK Mansuri, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants-original claimants and Ms.Foram Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader have jointly submitted that the captioned appeals are arising out of the impugned judgment rendered in Land Acquisition Reference Case no.2 of 2012 to Land Acquisition Reference Case no. 31 of 2012 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and the captioned appeals pertain to Land Acquisition Reference Case nos. 26 of 2012 and 30 of 2012. It is submitted that the Land Acquisition Reference Case no. 2 of 2012 was treated as the lead matter. It is jointly submitted that the First Appeals namely First Appeal Nos. 427 of 2022 to 431 of 2022 and First Appeal No. 4504 of 2022 to First Appeal No. 4511 of 2022, have been disposed of by this Court vide common oral judgment dated 11.02.2025; however, the captioned First Appeals were left out and would be governed by the said judgment. Mr.Mansuri, learned Advocate and Ms. Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader requested this Court to dispose of the captioned appeals in terms of the above referred common oral judgment dated 11.02.2025.

4. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the documents made available on record.

5. Pertinently, the captioned appeals are arising out of the impugned judgment and pertains to Land Acquisition Reference Case Nos. 30 of 2012 and 26 of 2012. It is also not in dispute that Land Acquisition Reference Case no.2 of 2012 was treated as the lead matter and all the references were disposed of by the common impugned judgment. The First Appeal Nos. 427 of 2022 to 431 of 2022 and First Appeal No. 4504 of 2022 to First Appeal No. 4511 of 2022 have been disposed of by this Court vide common oral judgment dated 11.02.2025 which reads thus:

“1. The issue involved in these appeals is common and hence, all the appeals are being heard analogously and being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The captioned group is arising out of the judgment and award dated 31.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned judgment’) passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar, district Sabarkantha in Land Acquisition Reference nos.2/2012 to 31/2012 whereby, the reference under section 18 of the LAND ACQUISITION ACT , 1894 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1894’), has been rejected and thus, the market value determined by the Deputy Collector under section 11, came to be confirmed. Hence, the captioned appeals by the claimants.

3. Mr R.K. Mansuri learned advocate appearing for the claimants, while inviting the attention of this Court to the impugned judgment, submitted that various issues were formulated namely; whether the claimants are entitled for additional compensation, if yes, at what rate permitted?; whether the claimants prove that the award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer is inadequate? It is submitted that voluminous documentary evidence was produced on record, namely, the orders allotting residential plots by way of auction of the very same village; the market value determined by the District Level Valuation Committee, Himmatnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Valuation Committee