BHAWARLAL HIRALAL TATEDversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

       C/FA/1515/2016                                    ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1515 of 2016
                          With
            R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 1514 of 2016
=========================================
            DEVJIBHAI RAJABHAI PATEL & ORS.
                          Versus
                STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=========================================
Appearance:
MR MAKBUL I MANSURI(2694) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
MS SURBHI S BHATI, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR NITIN V GOVINDIA(2127) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,3
=========================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                               Date : 29/07/2026

                   ORAL ORDER
 (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)


1.      These First Appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
have     been      preferred    by   the    respective     appellants       seeking
enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Reference
Court (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar) vide common
judgment and award dated 13/12/2013 passed in Land Reference
Cases No. 11 of 2003 and 12 of 2003 (from the group of Land
Reference Cases No. 10/2003 to 13/2003)


2.      The essential facts leading to the present appeals are as
under:


2.1 The appellants in both these appeals were the owners of non-
agricultural lands situated at village Motipura, Himmatnagar,
acquired for the public purpose of constructing/widening the Idar-


                                     Page 1 of 7
       C/FA/1515/2016                                      ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




Vijapur By-pass Road at Himmatnagar. For the purpose of the said
acquisition, the State issued a notification under Section 4 of the
Land      Acquisition        Act,   1894       ("the    Act")     on     06/06/2001.
Subsequently, a notification under Section 6 of the Act was
published on 10/11/2001, and a hearing under Section 9 was given
on 14/12/2001. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed a
common award under Section 11 of the Act on 21/04/2003,
determining the compensation for the acquired lands at Rs.135/-
per sq. Meter.


2.2     Being dissatisfied with the valuation, the appellants filed
Reference Applications under Section 18 of the Act on 27/08/2003
(Land Reference Case No. 11 of 2003 and Land Reference Case No.
12 of 2003). The learned Reference Court, Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Himmatnagar, vide its impugned common judgment and
award       dated       13/12/2013,       partly       allowed     the     Reference
Applications, awarding an additional compensation of Rs.77.80/-
per sq. meter (thus assessing total market value at Rs.212.80/- per
sq. meter) over and above the amount awarded by the Land
Acquisition Officer.


2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court, the
appellants       have      preferred    the    present     appeals       for   further
enhancement.


3.      The learned AGP Ms. Surbhi S. Bhati appearing on behalf of
the respondent-State submitted that the lands acquired in the
comparable judgment relied upon by the claimants were non-
agricultural       lands    utilized   for    commercial         purposes.     It    was
contended that in the cases on hand, no cogent material or iota of



                                       Page 2 of 7
     C/FA/1515/2016                                  ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




evidence has been placed on record by the appellants to establish
that the properties in question were used for commercial/non-
agricultural      purposes.   Furthermore,     it   was     submitted          that
unauthorized constructions were carried out on the subject lands,
disentitling the appellants from claiming any relief or compensation
for such unauthorized structures. In support of her submissions,
the learned AGP placed reliance on the decisions in: (i) Project
Director National Highways Vs. Alfa Remedies Ltd., Nagpur
[2026 INSC 480], (ii) Madhukar S/O Govindrao Kamble & Ors.
Vs. Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation & Ors.
[(2022) SC 108], (iii) Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Sri
Siddappa Omanna Tumari [(1994) SC 987], (iv) State of
Orissa Vs. Rajakishore Das [Decided on 05/02/1996], (v)
Mohammad Raofuddin Vs. The Land Acquisition Officer
[(2009) SC 570], (vi) Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs.
Okhabhai Ukabhai [First Appeal No. 3887 of 2014], (vii)
Bharat      Sanchar      Nigam    Limited      Vs.     M/s.      Nemichand
Damodardas [Civil Appeal No. 3478 of 2022], (viii) Spl. Land
Acquisition Officer Vs. Karigowda & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.
3838 of 2010]. (ix) Bhawarlal Hiralal Tated Vs. State of
Gujarat [Civil Appeal No. 5475 of 2016].


4. In context to the submissions and objections raised by the
learned AGP with regard to the awarding of compensation on
unauthorized construction and non-agricultural use, we have gone
through the entire impugned common order and award as well as
the record on hand.


5.    As regards the claim on unauthorized construction, the
learned Presiding Officer/Judge has explicitly made it clear while
concluding the impugned award that the appellants are not entitled



                                 Page 3 of 7
      C/FA/1515/2016                                         ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




to compensation for any unauthorized construction. The Reference
Court has already not awarded any compensation for unauthorized
structures. Therefore, while the legal proposition laid down in the
decisions relied upon by the learned AGP cannot be disputed, it
does not come to the rescue of the respondent-State as no
compensation for unauthorized construction has been awarded by
the Reference Court.


6.     In context to the submission that no evidence was produced
regarding the nature and use of the land, the learned advocate for
the appellants has drawn our attention to the reasoning assigned
by the learned Presiding Officer as well as the deposition of the
claimant, namely Shah Hareshkumar Babulal at Exh. 42. In
paragraph 9 of his deposition, he categorically stated that the
property in question was converted to Non-Agricultural (N.A.)
status and was being utilized for residential purposes. More so, the
learned Judge/Presiding Officer has also specifically recorded that
the acquired properties in question are non-agricultural lands
being used for residential purposes after getting proper N.A.
permission, a fact which has been admitted by both the parties.


7.     Having established that the lands in question are non-
agricultural lands situated in Motipura, which is known as the
heart of the city in Sabarkantha district having high development
potential, we advert to the valuation aspect based on the decided
comparable case of the very same locality, Pranav Kanubhai
Raval vs. State of Gujarat in First Appeal No. 1180 of 2014,
decided on 13/10/2015. In that case, the subject land was also non-
agricultural land situated in Motipura, Himmatnagar, acquired for
the   purpose          of   road   widening.         This   Court   considered         the
Government's own allotment order at Exh. 99 of a nearby non-



                                       Page 4 of 7
     C/FA/1515/2016                           ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




agricultural plot in Motipura valued at Rs.1500/- per sq. meter as of
June 1998, and after applying a 10% deduction towards smallness
of area and betterment charges, assessed the market value of the
land at Rs.1350/- per sq. meter as on the date of Section 4
notification (13/03/1999). Consequently, in the operative part of the
aforesaid decided case, this Court allowed the appeal and awarded
additional compensation to the tune of Rs.1270/- per sq. meter over
and above Rs.80/- per sq. meter awarded by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, along with solatium, statutory interest, and
12% additional market value under statutory provisions.


8.    Reverting to the facts of the cases on hand, the notification
under Section 4 of the Act was issued on 06.06.2001, whereas in
the aforesaid decided case, the notification under Section 4 was
issued on 13.03.1999. There is, thus, a gap of about two years
between the two notifications. Considering the location of the land
in a developing non-agricultural area of Motipura and giving a
reasonable annual price rise of 10% per annum over the market
value of Rs.1350/- per sq. mtr. determined in the decided case, the
market value of the lands in question as on the date of Section 4
notification would come to Rs.1633.50 per sq. mtr. The Special
Land Acquisition Officer having already awarded compensation @
Rs.135/- per sq. mtr., the appellants/claimants in both the appeals
would be entitled to receive additional compensation of Rs.1498.50
per sq. mtr. This would be accompanied by solatium, statutory
interest, and 12% additional market value as per statutory
provisions under Section 23(1-A), Section 23(2), and Section 28 of
the Act.


9.    It is further made clear that the present appeals have been
preferred after a period of delay, which was subsequently



                              Page 5 of 7
      C/FA/1515/2016                            ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




condoned by this Court. In view of the directions issued while
condoning the delay, it is explicitly directed in the operative part
that the appellants shall not be entitled to claim or receive any
statutory interest for the specific period from the date of the award
till the date of the order condoning delay/passing of order in
question, and the said period shall be strictly deducted while
calculating statutory interest.


10.      Both the First Appeals are partly allowed with proportionate
costs.


10.1 The common judgment and award dated 13/12/2013 passed
by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Himmatnagar in Land
Reference Case No. 11 of 2003 and Land Reference Case No. 12 of
2003 stands modified to the extent that the respective appellants
shall be entitled to receive additional compensation @ Rs.1498.50
per sq. meter (determining total market value at Rs.1633.50 per sq.
meter) over and above the compensation of Rs.135/- per sq. meter
awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.


10.2 The appellants shall also be entitled to all statutory benefits
including 30% solatium under Section 23(2), additional amount at
the rate of 12% per annum under Section 23(1-A), and statutory
interest under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as
applicable. Deduction of Interest for Delay Period, it is explicitly
ordered that while calculating statutory interest under Section 28
of the Act, the period starting from the date of the Reference
Court's award (13/12/2013) till the date of passing of order on the
delay application shall be strictly deducted, and the appellants shall
not be entitled to receive any interest for the said delayed period.
The respondent State / Acquiring Authority is directed to deposit



                                  Page 6 of 7
          C/FA/1515/2016                                                                    ORDER DATED: 29/07/2026




the enhanced amount of compensation along with statutory
benefits before the Reference Court within a period of twelve
weeks from the date of this order. Record & Proceedings, if any,
be sent back to the trial Court forthwith.




                                                                                                (ILESH J. VORA,J)



                                                                                           (R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/07/2026 13:22:29




                                                            Page 7 of 7