SHARDULBHAI UNADBHAIversusSTATE OF GUJARAT

     C/FA/483/2015                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                     R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 483 of 2015

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
=========================================
     Approved for Reporting     Yes   No

=========================================
             SHARDULBHAI UNADBHAI & ORS.
                           Versus
                    STATE OF GUJARAT
=========================================
Appearance:
MR. HEMAL SHAH(6960) for the Appellant(s) No. 1,1.1,1.2,1.3,2,3
MS. SURBHI S. BHATI, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1
=========================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
        and
        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

                             Date : 03/08/2026

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


1.     The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-
claimant challenging the legality, validity, and propriety of the
judgment and award dated 30/12/2014 passed by the learned 5th
Additional Senior Civil Judge, Amreli in Land Reference Case No.
34 of 2001. By the impugned judgment and award, the learned
Reference Court partly allowed the reference case, fixing the
compensation for the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 10.00 per sq.
mtr. by categorizing the land as Jirayat land, instead of treating it
as   Bagayat         land,   which     would       have   otherwise        fetched
compensation at the rate of Rs. 13.05 per sq. mtr. (Rs. 11.25 + Rs.


                                     Page 1 of 6
       C/FA/483/2015                                  JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026




1.80).


2.       The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the
State Government initiated land acquisition proceedings for public
purpose, acquiring land situated in the sim of village Zampodar,
Taluka Rajula, District Amreli. The notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 28/10/1991,
followed by the notification under Section 6 of the Act published on
08/10/1992. The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award
under Section 11(1) of the Act on 21/10/1994 in LAQ Case No. 46 of
1989, awarding compensation at the rate of Rs. 568.50 per acre for
Bagayat land and Rs. 284.25 per acre for Jirayat land. Being
dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the
Land Acquisition Officer, the appellant preferred a reference under
Section 18 of the Act, which was numbered as Land Reference
Case No. 34 of 2001 before the Reference Court, and the learned
judge, after hearing the parties, has partly allowed the reference;
hence, the present appeal has been filed.


3.       The moot question as surfaced from the material in question
is the issue with regard to the claim of the appellant herein, which
wholly rests on to consider the land in question as a Bagayat land
instead thereof a Jirayat land. The fundamental premise of the
appellant’s appeal lies in seeking reclassification of the subject of
land for the purpose of claiming higher market value, the nature of
the land whether Bagayat or Jirayat is a question that this fact
cannot be determined on flimsy or unverified claims. The burden
lies     squarely      on   the   claimant       to   produce       cogent         and
contemporaneous documentary and oral evidence demonstrating
the actual presence and operation of irrigation facilities as on the
crucial date of the Section 4 notification of land Acquisition Act.


                                   Page 2 of 6
      C/FA/483/2015                             JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026




4.      Though the efforts have been made by the appellant while
referring to the documents placed for consideration, particularly
documents at Exh. 41, to demonstrate that a well was in existence
and that they were lifting water for irrigation purposes, however,
the said documents seem to be of 11/07/2005, whereas the
question land was acquired in the year 1991. Thus, by citing the
aforesaid document, the appellant has made an effort to show that
the well was in existence and that they were lifting water, and thus
the land is to be described as a Bagayat land instead of Jirayat
Land. This Court cannot accept post-facto documentation created
long after the relevant date of acquisition to give retrospective
effect to a claim for higher compensation.


5.      At this juncture, to deal with the issue in precise, the relevant
portion which deals with the issue on hand as dealt with by the
Reference Court is required to be reproduced herewith. The
learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, while discarding the
aforesaid claim, has concluded that not only in view of the
aforesaid documents which appear to be of a subsequent date as
such, even at the date of notification under Section 4, nothing short
of any such material was produced to establish the prevailing
situation of the land in question which may constrain the Court to
consider that the well in question was existent. In land acquisition
jurisprudence, the crucial date for assessing the nature, character,
and market value of the land is the date of publication of the
Section 4 notification, and any improvement claimed subsequently
without contemporaneous evidentiary support must be rejected.



5.1     Furthermore, while dispatching the aforesaid claim, the
learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge in Paragraph 13 has
observed and concluded as under:


                                 Page 3 of 6
     C/FA/483/2015                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026




     “….Now if we look to the document Exh. 51, the Reference
     Court has at page 7 of the judgment considered the notification
     published u/s. 4 of the Act dt. 31/3/90 as base and considering
     the price fixed by Hon'ble High Court and the relevant date of
     notification u/s. 4 under that acquisition i.e. 28/10/91,
     calculated the difference of one year & seven months between
     two notifications and accordingly provided rise in price at rate
     of 10% per year and accordingly the price fixed by Hon'ble
     High Court was increased proportionately to Rs. 11.25 + Rs.
     1.80 = Rs. 13.05 Ps. for Bagayat land and Rs. 8.50 + Rs. 1.36 =
     Rs. 9.86 Ps. which is rounded to Rs. 10/- per Sqr. Mtr. for
     Jirayat land. Also the contention of the Ld. Advocate for
     applicant that the land should be treated as of Bagayat nature
     has as per discussion at Para 10 is being negatived, and hence
     the same is not repeated…."




6.     It    further   transpires     from        the    material      placed        for
consideration revenue record wherefrom it suggests that the
applicant used to take only one crop during the year, and two
Kharif crop. More so, column No. 11 of the revenue record lacks
any entry showing the availability of irrigation facilities, and
nothing short of any such entry seems to be surfaced to establish
the factum of availability of the facility of irrigation. And therefore,
in absence of the aforesaid, the conclusion arrived at by the
learned judge that the land in question is of Jirayat nature, which is
being cultivated purely on rainfall during the rainfall / monsoon,
and cannot be considered as a Bagayat land, is unassailable and
fully justified on facts as well as in law.



7.     Though the efforts also have been made by the appellant
while taking us to the deposition and cross-examination of the
witness, namely Yashvinikumar Dayashankar Shrivastav, examined
at Exh. 59, however, while perusing the same also, nothing sort of
any such material surfaced to come to the rescue of the claim of



                                    Page 4 of 6
      C/FA/483/2015                                   JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026




the appellant herein. The witness examined by the opponent side
clearly maintained that no documentary proof regarding active
irrigation or market value was produced during the Section 9
proceedings, and either in the cross-examination failed to elicit any
admission that could establish the existence of an operational well
on the date of notification.



8.      In context to the issue with regard to the type of land,
whether a Jirayat or Bagayat land, the learned judge has aptly
considered or discussed in detail while considering the entire
material in the form of oral as well as documentary evidence, and
summed up its conclusion while holding that the land in question is
of Jirayat. The Reference Court has painstakingly evaluated the
revenue entries, crop patterns, and witness statements before
rejecting the appellant's claim for Bagayat classification, and this
Court finds no legal or factual infirmity in the reasoning adopted by
the Learned Trial judge.



9.      At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to the relevant
portions of the questioned order pertaining to the issuance of the
notifications and the reference as to the order passed by this Court
in First Appeal No. 1504 of 2001, while passing the award with
regard to the different kinds of land, say for example Jirayat,
Bagayat, and other lands situated in the same village Zampodar.
The     judicial      determination    of    market   value     in   comparable
acquisition proceedings of the same locality serves as a reliable
benchmark for fixing just compensation.



10.     In view of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court in
First Appeal No. 1504 of 2001, the same has been considered by


                                      Page 5 of 6
       C/FA/483/2015                                                                    JUDGMENT DATED: 03/08/2026




the reference court, where prevailing price of the Zampodar village
is Rs. 11.25 for Bagayat and Rs. 8.50 for Jirayat, the learned
Reference Court rightly adopted the said base rates to maintain
consistency in judicial awards concerning the same geographical
area.



11.       A round up of 10% per annum escalation is taken considering
the time gap between the notifications. For Bagayat land, Rs. 11.25
plus Rs. 1.80 comes to Rs. 13.05 for Bagayat land, and for Jirayat
land, Rs. 8.50 plus Rs. 1.36 comes to Rs. 9.86, which is rounded off
to Rs. 10.00 for Jirayat land. Since the appellant failed to establish
the Bagayat character of the land, the learned Reference Court
rightly awarded compensation at the rate of Rs. 10.00 per sq. mtr.
applicable to Jirayat land.



12.       In view of the above detailed discussion, this Court finds no
substance in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands
dismissed while confirming the judgment and order passed by the
Trail       court.          Interim            relief,         if    any,         stands           vacated.             Interim
application, if any, stands disposed of. Record and 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 03/08/2026 15:12:34




                                                           Page 6 of 6