Holding

The Court held that the claimants are entitled to compensation at Rs.76 per square metre for both irrigated and non‑irrigated land and that the earlier judgments and awards are set aside.

Summary

The claimants' lands in Savpura village were acquired for the Narmada Project under notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded a nominal compensation, which was later increased by the Reference Court by Rs.15.54 per sq m. The claimants appealed the common judgments and awards dated 28‑10‑2013 and 31‑12‑2014, arguing that, based on a precedent involving the adjacent village Bhapi, the market value should be Rs.76 per sq m for both irrigated and non‑irrigated land. The Gujarat High Court, relying on First Appeal No.701/2017 and Supreme Court precedents, held that the same market‑value principle applies and set aside the earlier judgments, directing the State to pay the enhanced compensation without interest. The court also disposed of the related civil applications.

Issues considered

Whether the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act should be enhanced based on market value of adjacent villages and the date of notification.
Whether the earlier common judgments and awards dated 28‑10‑2013 and 31‑12‑2014 should be quashed.
Whether interest is payable on the delayed compensation.
Whether the same compensation rate applies to irrigated and non‑irrigated land.

Legislation cited

Land Acquisition Acts. 18, s. 4, s. 4(1), s. 6

Subjects

land acquisitioncompensationmarket valueNarmada projectreference courtadditional compensationinterestGujarat High Court

Judgment

C/FA/5337/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5337 of 2019

With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE) NO. 1 of 2020
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5337 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5337 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5333 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5333 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5336 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5336 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5773 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5773 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5774 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5774 of 2019
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5775 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR AMENDMENT) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5775 of 2019
==========================================================
GANCHI KARAMSIBHAI BHALABHAI (DECEASED THRU LEGAL HEIRS) &
ORS.
Versus
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR VIRAL J DAVE(5751) for the Appellant(s) No. 1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5

Page 1 of 10
C/FA/5337/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

DELETED for the Defendant(s) No. 3
MS DIXA PANDYA, AGP for the Respondent No. 1
MR RUTVIJ S OZA(5594) for the Respondent No. 2
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 31/07/2026

JUDGMENT

IN CAs FOR AMENDMENT

Considering the averments made in the applications, the
same are allowed. Necessary amendments to be carried out
in the original proceedings.

IN FIRST APPEALS

1. Being aggrieved by the common judgment and award
dated 28.10.2013 passed by the learned 2 nd Addl. Senior Civil
Judge, Banaskantha @ Palanpur in LAR Nos.6 of 2000 to 12 of
2000, First Appeal Nos.5337, 5333, 5336, 5773 and 5774 all
of 2019 are filed by the original claimants before this Court.
Whereas First Appeal No.5775 of 2019 is filed challenging
common judgment and award dated 31.12.2014 passed by the
learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Banaskantha @ Palanpur
in LAR No.5 of 2000.

2. Brief facts of the case in First Appeal Nos.5337, 5333,
5336, 5773 and 5774 all of 2019 are as under:-

2.1 The lands of the claimants situated at village Savpura,

Page 2 of 10
C/FA/5337/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

Tal: Tharad, Dist: Banaskantha came to be acquired by the
State for the purpose of Narmada Project by issuing
notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act on 29.4.1997
and 26.9.1997 respectively. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer vide his award dated 19.7.1999 awarded Rs.2.06 paisa
per sq mtr as compensation for the acquired lands. The
claimants preferred reference under section 18 of the Act
before the Court of learned Reference Court, Banaskantha @
Palanpur, who by impugned common judgment and award,
partly allowed the reference of the original claimants and
granted additional amount of compensation of Rs. 15.54 paisa
per sq.mtr over and above the compensation awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer. Feeling aggrieved by the
award, the claimants have preferred the present appeals.

3. Brief facts of the case in First Appeal No.5775of 2019
are as under:-

3.1 The lands of the claimants situated at village Savpura,
Tal: Tharad, Dist: Banaskantha came to be acquired by the
State for the purpose of Narmada Project by issuing
notifications under sections 4 and 6 of the Act on 10.3.1997
and 10.7.1997 respectively. The Special Land Acquisition
Officer vide his award dated 26.7.1999 awarded Rs.3.10 paisa
per sq mtr for irrigated land and Rs.2.06 paisa per sq mtr for
non-irrigated land as compensation for the acquired lands.
The claimants preferred reference under section 18 of the Act
before the Court of learned Reference Court, Banaskantha @
Palanpur, who by impugned common judgment and award,
partly allowed the reference of the original claimants and

Page 3 of 10
C/FA/5337/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

granted additional amount of compensation of Rs. 15.54 paisa
per sq.mtr over and above the compensation awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer. Feeling aggrieved by the
award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Viral Dave for the original
claimants, learned AGP Ms. Dixa Pandya for the respondent
State and learned advocate Mr. Rutvij Oza for the respondent
No.2.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Viral Dave appearing for the
claimants relying upon the judgment of the Coordinate Bench
of this Court in First Appeal Nos.141 of 2026 and allied
matters, would submit that in the case on hand, land of village
Savpura is acquired for the purpose of Narmada canal project,
whereas, in the judgment relied upon, land of village Bhapi
was acquired for the same purpose of Narmada canal project.
He would further submit that section 4 Notification of the Act
was issued on even date or with a litter variance of 2-3
months. He would further submit that the marketability,
potentiality and fertility of lands of village Savpura and Bhapi
is one and the same and both are adjacent to each other and
even touched by the geographical boundaries. Thus, he would
submit that since the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the
aforestated First Appeals, granted total compensation of
Rs.76/- per sq mtr, same compensation may be granted in the
present case also.

5.1 Upon such submissions, learned advocate Mr. Dave
requests to allow present First Appeals.

Page 4 of 10
C/FA/5337/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

6. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Rutvij Oza and
learned AGP, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
request the Court to pass necessary orders.

7. Having heard learned advocates for all the parties, at
the outset, what could be noticeable that notification u/s 4 of
the Act issued for the lands of village Bhapi and Savpura were
of nearby dates i.e. variance of only 1-2 months. Even, the
award in all the matters was passed in the year 1999; the
purpose of acquisition of the lands was also one and the same.

8. The controversy has been put to rest by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court by passing judgment in the aforestated
First Appeals, which arose from the land acquisition of village
Bhapi, which is adjacent to village Savpura (subject matter of
present First Appeals). Para 5 and 6 are very relevant, which
read as under:-

“5. Having considered the submission made by
learned advocates for the respective parties, it
emerges from the record that the boundary of
village Bhapi which is under acquisition and village
Vami, on which reliance was placed, is common. It
is also not disputed by learned AGP Mr.Parth Patel
that the decision rendered by the Division Dench of
this Court in First Appeal No.701/2017 was
accepted and the compensation has been paid to
the respective claimants. It is true that for the
same village Vami, another decision was rendered
by this Court, prior to the decision rendered in
First Appeal No.701/2017 wherein the market
value of the land was fixed at the rate of Rs.75/- per
sq.mtr. in which the notification is of the year 1999
however, in the opinion of this Court, the claimants

Page 5 of 10
C/FA/5337/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

are entitled for the best price as their lands were
acquired under the compulsory acquisition. In that
background, it would be more beneficial for the
claimants if the decision rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.701/2017 is
applied here, where the date of notification is
28.08.1997. As in the instant case date of
notification having only four months difference i.e
29.04.1997, the claimants would be entitled for the
same market value as decided by this Court in First
Appeal No.701/2017. The relevant portion of the
above decision is reproduced herienbelow:

“6. We have heard learned AGP for the
appellant-State, we have perused the record
of the case made available by learned AGP.
7. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it
is apparent that the Reference Court has
enumerated oral and documentary evidence
available on record. The Reference Court has
taken into consideration the submissions on
behalf of the claimants, who had demanded
an amount of Rs.200/- per sq. mtr. Submission
was also made on behalf of the claimants on
the basis of yield and thereafter, reliance is
placed upon Land Reference Case Nos.116 of
2003 to 131 of 2003 of the same village, i.e.
Vami. Over and above, reliance was placed
upon the judgment in LAR No.185 of 2002 in
case of adjoining village of Mahajanpura and
in both the references, the Reference Court
had assessed the market value at the rate of
Rs.95.40 per sq. mtr.

8. The Reference Court has also taken into
consideration the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in the case of Mohammad
Raofuddin Vs. The Land Acquisition
Officer, (2009) 14 SCC, 367 and General
Manager, Oil and Natural Gas
Corporation Ltd. Vs. Rameshbhai
Jivanbhai patel & Anr., 2008 (4) GLR,
2833 and thereafter has concluded as under:-

Page 6 of 10
C/FA/5337/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

“20. Therefore in view of the above judgments
of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble
Gujarat High Court it is well settled legal
position of the law that Reference Court took
into consideration awards in respect of lands
of adjacent villages at or about dated
notification under Section 4(1) of the Act are
best guide for determination of market value
of land to arrive at a fair estimate of amount
of compensation payable to land owner. In the
present case claimants have relied upon the
judgment of village Mahajanpura and village
Vami. Village Mahajanpura is at a distance of
2 km from Vammi and in the judgment of
village Mahajanpura market value is
determined relying upon the judmgent of
village Negla which is confirmed by the
Hon’ble Gujarat High Court. The judgment of
village Vami was passed considering the
earlier judgment of village Jamda. Claimants
has produced copy of the Judgment of village
Vami wide Exhibit 61/1, in which market
value of Rs.95.40/- per sq. meters fixed on the
date of publication of notification u/s.14 i.e.
29/10/1999. While in the case of village Nagla
market value of Rs.95.40/- per sq. meter is
fixed on the date of publication of notification
u/s.4 i.e. 8/8/1999. Upon considering both the
judgments market value in the year 1999 was
considered Rs.95.40 per sq. meter. Ld.
Advocate for the claimants has produced
previous judgment of same village Vami and
therefore in the present references cases
market value is determined considering the
earlier judgment of LAR No.116/2003 to
131/2003. Looking to the evidence of the
claimant he has stated that notification u/s.
was published on 30/04/1997 but looking to
the reference application exh-1 and award
passed by LAO notification u/s.4 was
published on 28/08/1997. In section 4(1) of
the Act it is provided that the last date of the
dates of such publication and the giving of

Page 7 of 10
C/FA/5337/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

such public notice, being hereinafter referred
to as the date of the publication of the
notification. Looking to the award last date of
publication is 28/08/1997 and therefore
market value on 28/08.1997 of the acquired
land is to be determined. In the present case
notification was published on 28/8/1997 while
in LAR 116/2003 to 131/2003 date of
notification was 29/10/1999 and hence there
is time gap of 2 years 2 months 1 day.
Therefore looking to the difference in both
notification market value can be calculated by
10% decrease per year on Rs.95.40. So
decrease at the rate of 10% of 95.40 for time
gap would come to Rs.95.40-9.54=85.86-
Rs.8.58=Rs.77.28/-Rs.1.28 = Rs.76.00 per sq.
meter. Therefore in the present case market
value on the date of publication of notification
i.e. 28/8/1997 comes to Rs.76 per sq. meter.
Hence the claimants are entitled to get
Rs.76.00 per sq. mt. as an additional
compensation for the acquired land. Hence I
answer issue no.1 in affirmative.”
9. Learned AGP is unable to contest this
proposition that where the market value of
the land belonging to the same village i.e.
Vami being fixed at Rs.95.40 per sq. mtr. and
which is accepted by the State then there is
no reason to differentiate the market value of
similar type of /and of thesame village. In
fact, the Reference Court is justified in
arriving at the market value at Rs.77.28 by
considering the base price of Rs.95.40 of
village Vami where Section 4 notification is
dated 29.10.1999. Thereafter, justifiably has
allowed reduction in the market value at the
rate of 10% per year considering the fact that
Section 4 notification in the present
acquisition was published on 28.08.1997,
where there is time gap of two years and two
months.
10. Learned AGP has thereafter not
canvassed any other ground to substantiate

Page 8 of 10
C/FA/5337/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

the challenge to the Reference Court.
11. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment and
award of the Reference Court being passed
on proposition of law and after appreciation
of evidence on record, needs no interference.
The appeals therefore deserve to be and are
hereby dismissed. No order at to costs.
12. In view of the order passed in the main
First Appeals, Civil Applications do not
survive. Disposed of accordingly.”
Considering the same, claimants would be entitled
for the market value at the rate of Rs.76/-per
sq.mtr. for irrigated as well as non-irrigated land as
the Division Bench of this Court, in above appeal,
has granted equal amount for irrigated and non-
irrigated land and State has accepted the same.
Accordingly, the difference amount is required to
be paid to the claimants. The remaining part of the
impugned judgment shall remain unaltered.”

9. In view of above, without dealing further into the merits
of the case, when lands of village Bhapi and Savpura having
similarly situated on all aspects, the amount of compensation
granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court is required to be
granted in the present group of matters also.

10. In the result, present First Appeals are allowed.
Impugned common judgment and award dated 28.10.2013
passed by the learned 2nd Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Banaskantha @ Palanpur in LAR Nos.6 of 2000 to 12 of 2000
so also common judgment and award dated 31.12.2014 passed
by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Banaskantha @
Palanpur in LAR No.5 of 2000 are hereby quashed and set
aside.

11. Now, the claimants would be entitled for the market

Page 9 of 10
C/FA/5337/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 31/07/2026

value at the rate of Rs.76/-per sq.mtr being total
compensation for irrigated as well as non-irrigated land
inclusive of the compensation already awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer as well as the learned Reference
Court, with all statutory benefits.

12. Request of learned advocate Mr. Rutvij Oza as well as
learned AGP to deposit enhanced amount of compensation
within a period of 08 weeks is accepted.

13. The learned Reference Court is directed to disburse the
amount of compensation deposited by the State Government
after deducting Court fee on additional amount of
compensation, to the claimants after due verification and
identification along with interest and after verifying their
right to claim the compensation.

14. It is clarified that the claimants are not entitled for the
interest on the delayed period.

15. Consequently, CAs do not survive and stand disposed of
accordingly.

16. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
the concerned Court forthwith.

(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 31/07/2026 15:25:54

Page 10 of 10