Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 1084

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C. DOSHI, J.

Land Acquisition And Rehabilitation Officer & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Lrs. Of Late Nai Pirabhai Kalabhai & Ors. – Defendants
R/First Appeal No. 905 Of 2020 With R/First Appeal No. 906 Of 2020 With R/First Appeal No. 907 Of 2020 With R/First Appeal No. 305 Of 2022 With R/Cross Objection No. 258 Of 2022 With R/Cross Objection No. 261 Of 2022 With R/Cross Objection No. 262 Of 2022 With R/Cross Objection No. 263 Of 2022
Decided On : 13-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Ms Hemali Soni, AGP
For the Defendants : Mr Mahesh P. Patel, Mr N.P. Chaudhary.

Valuation reports by statutorily constituted expert committees constitute reliable evidence for fixing land market value. The percentage of deduction for developmental costs must be proportional to the land’s specific development status, location, and potential, rather than being applied mechanically based on generalized precedents.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 18 and 54 - Determination of compensation - Valuation report by expert committee constitutes a valid basis for fixing market value - Evidentiary requirements for land valuation.

(B) Deduction percentage - Parameters for determining deduction from market value - Deduction should be commensurate with site-specific developmental characteristics and land utility - Court duty to ensure just and reasonable compensation based on existing market evidence rather than mechanical application of prior precedents. (Paras 7, 11)

Facts of the case:
The acquisition of land for public infrastructure projects prompted challenges regarding the adequacy of compensation. The lower court relied on valuation reports but applied specific percentage deductions. The matter came before the court through appeals and cross-objections seeking upward revision of compensation rates based on established precedents and location-specific development evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that valuation reports from expert committees carrying out statutory functions are reliable evidence for compensation. It found that while reliance on comparable data from nearby areas is permissible, distance and land potential must lead to nuanced, case-specific deductions rather than rigid adherence to past formulas.

Issues: Whether an expert committee report serves as a primary evidentiary basis for market valuation and what criteria should govern the percentage of deduction for developmental costs in land acquisition.

Ratio Decidendi: Valuation by statutorily appointed expert committees provides a sound evidentiary basis for market value determination. Appellate courts must evaluate compensation claims by balancing committee recommendations against site-specific development evidence, adjusting standard deductions to reflect actual land potentiality rather than applying uniform reduction percentages.

Result: Appeals and cross-objections disposed of with modifications to the compensation award and directions for disbursement to claimants.

Table of Content
1. procedural context for land acquisition compensation appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 4)
2. contentions regarding applicability of prior judgments based on geographic proximity. (Para 5 , 6)
3. application of judicial precedents and valuation committee reports for land value. (Para 7 , 8 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. determination of compensation deduction rates based on distance and comparability. (Para 11)
5. final order and mandate for disbursement of enhanced compensation. (Para 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. Vide the common judgment dated 06.04.2018 passed in Land Reference Case Nos.55 of 2005 to 58 of 2005 (New Land Reference Case Nos.25 of 2017 to 28 of 2017) keeping the Main L.A.R.No.25 of 2017, the Reference Court i.e. Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tharad at Deesa Court granted additional compensation at the rate of Rs.278.40 ps per sq mtr with usual statutory benefits which is questioned by the State Government in these appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

2. On being served, the original claimants filed Cross Objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘the Code’, for short).

3.1 The brief facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are to the effect that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, SIPU Yojana, at Palanpur, Dist.Banaskantha, acquired the lands of the claimants for the public purpose. Consequently, in LAQ Case No.186 of 2004, the Land Acquisition Officer was pleased to grant Rs.6.60 per sq mtr for irrigated land whereby Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 01.07.2004 and Notification under Section 6 was published on 03.11.2004.

3.2 In the present case, the lands acquired are from Village Sedla, Tal.Tharad, Dist.Banaskantha for spreading the Sujlam Suflam Canal. The claimants since dissatisfied by the acquisition award passed by the Land Acquisition Officer was less, preferred Reference Under Section 18 of the Act. However, relying upon the District Valuation Committee report, which were produced vide Exhs.14 and 15, the Reference Court passed an award deducting certain amount. The impugned award therefore brings the aforesaid proceedings.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jinesh Kapadia for the Objectors and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Hemali Soni for the appellants in the appeals filed by the State Government.

5. Mr.Kapadia, learned advocate for the objectors, in support of his submission, referred to the judgment dated 28.04.2025 rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of First Appeal No.4879 of 2018 whereby the Division Bench was pleased to dismiss the appeals preferred by the State Government confirming the Reference Court’s judgment and allowed the cross objections and granted reduction upto 20%. He would submit that the said judgment passed in the lands acquired which were adjoining to village Ghela which were acquired for the very same purpose having published the Notification under Section 4 of the Act dated 29.04.2004.

6. As against the aforesaid submission, learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Hemali Soni would submit that there is distance of 15 km between Village Ghela and village Shedla, however, on query being raised by this Court as to whether there is any other judgment is available for adjacent village wherein boundaries of both villages are touching with each other, she would submit that there is no such judgment available with the State Government.

7. In paras:7 to 11 of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 28.04.2025 passed in F.A.No.4879 of 2018 and allied matters observed as under:

“7. The captioned appeals and the cross objections are against the impugned judgment dated 22.09.2017. It is not in dispute and has been fairly accepted by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties that the lands are acquired for the public purpose of constructing Sujalam Sufalam Spreading Canal of various villages including villages Lakhani and Ghela. It is also not in dispute that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document