Taiyabali Yusufali vs State Of Gujarat

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1913

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sunita Agarwal, C.J., D.N.Ray, J.
Taiyabali Yusufali & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State Of Gujarat & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 7768 of 2012
Decided On : 10-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr P M Bhatt, Mr Rishit P Bhatt
For the Respondent: Ms.Hetal Patel, Asst.Government Pleader, Mr Vaibhav A Vyas

Important Points

The Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction to amend a finalized award under the Land Acquisition Act; disputes on compensation apportionment must be determined by a Civil Court based on the parties' rights and interests.

Subject

Property Law - Land Acquisition

Act Referred

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.227
LAND ACQUISITION ACT : S.10, S.11, S.12, S.13(a), S.18, S.29, S.3(b), S.30, S.9
GUJARAT TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT : S.74

Headnote

(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Dispute regarding apportionment of compensation - The court held that the Deputy Collector lacked jurisdiction to amend a final award after it was passed, and hence the revised award is invalid - The matter should be adjudicated by the Civil Court to determine rights, title, and interest of the parties involved - Existing evidence did not support claims regarding ownership and entitlement of compensation - Judicial review of administrative decisions must conform to the statutory framework. (Paras 1-4, 50-52)

(B) Jurisdiction of Courts - Powers under statutory frameworks - A Deputy Collector cannot amend an award post finality as it is beyond the given jurisdiction - The Civil Court must adjudicate disputes relating to property rights arising from such awards correctly. (Paras 5, 42-44)

(C) Apportionment of Compensation - The dispute over the right to compensation must consider evidence of ownership and the legitimate claims of parties as recognized by law. (Paras 13-19)

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek compensation as heirs of original owner. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court discusses details and implications of prior orders. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. arguments highlighting errors in prior court decisions. (Para 5 , 6 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. clarifies limitations on collector's authority regarding awards. (Para 28 , 29 , 38 , 39 , 42 , 43)
5. court sets aside prior order, remits to civil court. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. This petition invoking extraordinary supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993, wherein a dispute arose between the heirs and legal representatives of deceased Yusufali Amadbhai, the original owner and the respondent No.3 herein with respect to apportionment of compensation determined under the reference court award for the land in question, which was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act’ 1894”), has been adjudicated.

2. The further challenge is to the order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer for apportionment of compensation under the original award, between the original owner namely Yusufali Amadbhai and the respondent No.3, namely Laljibhai Kanjibhai Sorathiya, who claimed to be administrator and through whom the original owner Yusufali Amadbhai was appearing in the land acquisition proceedings. The Further prayer is to declare that the petitioners, who are the heirs and legal representatives of original owner, namely Yusufali Amadbhai are entitled to the entire compensation amount awarded in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993, vide judgment and order dated 28.12.1995 along with the statutory benefits of the Act’ 1894.

3. It seems that the entire compensation awarded under the reference Court award dated 28.12.1995 has been deposited under the order 05.09.2011 and is lying with the reference court as on date. It is admitted to the learned counsels for the parties that there is no disbursement of the amount determined under the reference court award dated 28.12.1995 till date.

4. The question before us is about the validity of the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993, wherein it is held that the entire awarded amount in Land Acquisition Reference Case No.62 of 1993 is to be paid as per the revised award dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Deputy Collector. The applications filed by the rival parties for payment of the awarded amount were rejected leaving it open for them to file fresh applications for the amount that was payable to them.

5. Challenging the order passed by the reference court, it was argued by Mr.P. M. Bhatt, the learned advocate for the petitioners, that the Civil Court has committed a grave error of law in deciding the dispute relating to apportionment of compensation between two rival parties, solely based on the order dated 30.04.1993 passed by the Collector, wherein it has directed to apportion the compensation amount for the lands in question namely, Survey Nos. ‘47’ and ‘48’ (total area 62,431 sq.mts.) on the basis of an alleged compromise arrived between the original owner Yusufali Amad and respondent No.3, namely Lalji Kanji.

6. It is submitted that with the passing of the land acquisition award dated 06.02.1993, appended at page No. ‘62 / A’ of the paper-book (as Annexure ‘A’), the land acquisition officer / Deputy Collector became functus officio. The Deputy Collector / Land Acquisition Officer had no jurisdiction to make an order for amendment of the award for apportionment of compensation between the original owner and respondent No.3 on the premise of a compromise arrived between them even prior to t