Created byFuzzy Cloud

High Court of Gujarat

HEIRS OF BHAILALBHAI MANSANGBHAIversusSPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER

Disposal
33-CA DISPOSED OF
Bench
C DOSHI

Holding

The appeal is dismissed because the State cannot challenge the Reference Court's award after having accepted it for other claimants, as such conduct would constitute patent discrimination.

Summary

The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others acquired land in Osara village for the Narmada Project under the Land Acquisition Act, awarding Rs.1.90 per square meter. The claimants challenged this award before a Reference Court, which granted additional compensation of Rs.90.60 per square meter. The appellants (the State) appealed the Reference Court's award, but during the pendency, they withdrew other related appeals in Lok Adalat and had accepted the award for other claimants. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Shivappa v. Chief Engineer (2023) that a State cannot adopt a 'pick‑and‑choose' approach and discriminate among claimants, the High Court held that the State could not contest the award. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the award was to be paid to the claimants.

Issues considered

  • Whether the State can contest the Reference Court's award of additional compensation after having withdrawn other appeals and accepted the award for other claimants.
  • Whether such a contest amounts to discrimination prohibited by Supreme Court precedent.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Land acquisitionAdditional compensationReference CourtDiscriminationSupreme Court precedentAppeal dismissedPetty claimLok Adalat

Judgment

     C/FA/3052/2011                               ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                      R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3052 of 2011

                                   With
                      R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 85 of 2012
                                     In
                       R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3052 of 2011
==========================================================
               SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS.
                                Versus
                 H/O BHAILALBHAI MANSANGBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
ROHAN LAVKUMAR(9248) for the Appellant(s) No. 3
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Defendant(s) No. 6
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No.
10,11,1.1,12,1.2,13,1.3,1.4,1.5,2,3,4,5,7,8,9
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                              Date : 21/07/2026

                                  ORDER


1.    By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged
the common judgment and award dated 31.01.2009 passed by
the learned Reference Court being learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Bharuch in LAR Nos.1 to 21 of 1997 whereby, the
Reference Court has awarded Rs.90.60ps. per square meter
for the acquired land as an additional compensation, over and
above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition
Officer together with solatium and interest.


2.    The facts of the present case are that the appellants
have acquired the land situated at Village: Osara, Taluka &


                                  Page 1 of 4
     C/FA/3052/2011                                 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026




District: Bharuch for public purpose under Narmada Project.
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was
published on 19.10.1991 and Notification under Section 6 of
the Land Acquisition Act was published on 2.7.1992. The
award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was
passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officerin LAQ Case
No. 13/1991 and awarded the compensation at Rs.1.90/- per
sq mtr. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have
preferred the aforesaid Land Reference Cases before the
Reference Court whereby, the Reference Court awarded
additional compensation at Rs.90.60 paisa. per square meter
vide its judgment and award dated 31.01.2009.


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


4.    Heard learned advocates for the parties.


5.    It appears that during the pendency of this appeal,
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 appeal is exceeded the limit, the State
Government cannot be permitted to contest the appeal/s and
challenge 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

                                   Page 2 of 4
     C/FA/3052/2011                                      ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026




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.”


6.     Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, since the appellant does not dispute the fact that the
appellant either, after having preferred appeals, some appeals
had withdrawn as the claim as per the Circular was petty
claim and thereafter, merely on account of the fact that the
additional amount awarded to the present claimants exceeds
the cut-off for a petty claim, the State would not be permitted
to question the same, more particularly since the State has
accepted the very same award of the learned Reference Court
with regard to other claimants. As observed by the Hon’ble
Apex    Court,        such   an   attitude       would     smack       of    patent
discrimination and cannot be countenanced.


                                   Page 3 of 4
               C/FA/3052/2011                                                           ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026




      7.         In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. If the
      appellants have not deposited the amount then the same shall
      be deposited before the Reference Court within a period of
      eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the
      amount is deposited by the appellants before the Reference
      Court, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants
      after verifying their bank details through RTGS / NEFT.
      Registry is directed to send back the record and proceedings
      to the Reference Court forthwith. No order as to costs.


      8.         In view of disposal of First Appeal, cross objection does
      not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.



                                                                                                      (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 21/07/2026 15:48:24




                                                            Page 4 of 4


Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "Land acquisition"Sign in to search

For a digitally signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's own website. Only the court can issue one.