SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SANGEETA K. VISHEN, MOOL CHAND TYAGI, JJ.
Joshi Bhalchandra Shankarlal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus 
State Of Gujarat – Respondent 
R/First Appeal No. 1083 of 2025 With R/First Appeal No. 1084 of 2025
Decided On : 20-06-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr R.K. Mansuri.
For the Respondent: Mr Siddharth Rami, Assistant Government Pleader.

Market value in land acquisition cases must reflect current assessments by expert committees rather than outdated valuations, ensuring fair compensation aligns with statutory requirements.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 18, 23(1-A), and Section 28 - Appeals concerning market value fixation for land acquisition rejected by the Reference Court - The learned Judge incorrectly relied on old valuation, failing to consider more recent market value evidence, thus the resultant compensation was deemed inadequate. (Paras 3, 6, 26)

(B) Compensation determination - The valuation by the Valuation Committee is substantive evidence for market value and should not be disregarded without valid reasoning; appropriate deductions for development should be applied when relevant. (Paras 10, 26)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arise from a common judgment where the Reference Court rejected claims for higher compensation based on recent market values, stating that the old award fixation was adequate. (Paras 2, 10)

Findings of Court:
The appeals were found to establish a higher market value based on recent evidence, necessitating adjustments to compensation. The previous decision was quashed and compensated at a revised rate. (Paras 26)

Issues: Whether the learned Judge properly evaluated evidence for market value and the appropriateness of the compensation awarded were central to the court's deliberation. (Paras 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that modern evidence from the Valuation Committee, reflecting current market conditions, was critical and that reliance solely on earlier awards was flawed without considering contemporaneous valuations. (Paras 10, 26)

Result: The impugned judgment was quashed, allowing parties to receive revised compensation based on existing market assessments.

Table of Content
1. details on the appeals and prior judgments' implications. (Para 6)
2. evidence presented by both claimants and defendant. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 13)
3. court's evaluation of market value determination. (Para 14 , 15)
4. expert committee valuations recognized as significant. (Para 16)
5. proximity of prior valuations to current case. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
6. discrepancies between casual comparisons of land values. (Para 21 , 22)
7. final determination of compensation rates. (Para 26)
8. conclusion on appeal outcomes and orders. (Para 27 , 28)

ORDER :

MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J.

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:

“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 th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top