IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2553 of 2010 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2561 of 2010 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2562 of 2010 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK ==========================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ==========================================

SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.

Versus PATEL ASHOKKUMAR AMBARAM ==========================================

Appearance:

MS ROSHNI PATEL AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2 J K GANDHI(7482) for the Defendant(s) No. 1 ==========================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 18/09/2025

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 28.04.2008 passed by the learned Reference Court being learned Additional District Judge, Mehsana in LAR Nos.654 of 2007 to 663 of 2007 (main LAR No.654 of 2007) whereby the Reference Court has awarded Rs.76/- per square meter for the acquired land as an additional compensation over and above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer together with other consequential benefits to the original claimants. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short “the Act”) in respect of the lands under acquisition was issued on 22.09.2003 and declaration under Section 6 of the Act was published on 23.11.2004 in respect of the lands situated in Village: Chandrasan, Taluka: Kadi, District: Mehsana for construction of Chandrasan Direct Minor Canal, Sanand Branch Canal under Narmada Yojana. The Special Land Acquisition Officer vide his award made under Section 11 of the Act on 23.1.2006 awarded Rs.6/- per square meter as compensation for acquired lands. Against such award, the respondents herein approached the Court seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act before the Reference Court.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for the appellants and learned counsel appearing for the respondents – claimants. It is submitted that the another group of appeals being First Appeal No. 1221 of 2014 and allied appeals came to be disposed on 09.05.2014 and one another appeal being First Appeal No. 2554 of 2010 came to be disposed of in the Lok Adalat on 08.04.2017.

4. It appears that during the pendency of these appeals, another group of appeals filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat, which covers the issue involved in the present appeal, were withdrawn in the Lok Adalat. Since the claim in the said appeals was settled in the Lok Adalat and the amount involved in the present appeals are exceeded the limit, the State Government cannot be permitted to contest the appeal/s and challenged the impugned judgment and award in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivappa Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer and others reported in 2023 LiveLaws SC 312. Relevant observations at paragraphs 9 to 11 are reproduced herein below for benefits:-

“9. In the said case also, the Reference Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250/- per acre. The High Court, vide order dated 8.3.2016 has allowed the said appeal(s) to be withdrawn and the same had been placed on record before this Court in I. A. No.59170 of 2016. Though a period of more than six years had lapsed, the said position is not contested by the respondents.

10. The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose.

11. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination.”

5. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, since the appellants do not dispute the fact that the appellants either, after having preferred appeals, some appeals had withdra