High Court of Gujarat
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICERversusMAGANBHAI RAMBHAI
- Disposal
- 39-RULE DISCHARGED/DISMISSED @ FH
Holding
The Reference Court did not commit any error in its valuation and the appeals are dismissed.
Summary
The Special Land Acquisition Officer appealed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 against an award by the Principal Civil Judge that granted the land owners additional compensation of Rs 300 per square metre, along with statutory solatium and interest. The acquiring body argued that the Reference Court erred by mechanically adopting the compensation rate from an earlier exemplar case in the same village without an independent market‑value assessment, citing differences in location and purpose of the land. The land owners contended that the exemplar represented the highest comparable value and was correctly applied. The High Court examined the reliance on the exemplar, the statutory provisions governing additional compensation, and the requirement to adopt the highest comparable value. It held that the Reference Court had correctly applied the law and the highest exemplar, finding no error in the award. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the award stood.
Issues considered
- Whether the Reference Court erred in determining market value by relying on an exemplar case from the same village without an independent assessment.
- Whether the additional compensation of Rs 300 per square metre, along with solatium and interest, is justified under Sections 23(1‑A) and 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
- Whether the appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 can be allowed to set aside the award.
Legislation cited
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894s. 11, s. 23(1-A), s. 23(2), s. 28, s. 4, s. 54, s. 6
Subjects
land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuereference courtSection 54Section 23solatiuminterestexemplar case
Judgment
C/FA/5204/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5204 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5206 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5207 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5208 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5209 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5210 of 2008
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5211 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ANR.
Versus
RAVAJIBHAI RANCCHODBHAI PATEL DECD.THROUGH THE LRS & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
DR VENUGOPAL PATEL AGP for the Appellants No. 1,2
DECEASED LITIGANT for the Defendant(s) No. 1.1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Defendant(s) No. 1,1.4,1.4.1,2
MR VIBHUTI NANAVATI(513) for the Defendant(s) No.
1.2,1.3,1.4.2,1.5,1.6,1.7,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI
Date : 30/07/2026
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA)
Page 1 of 9
C/FA/5204/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
1. Since the issues raised in the above captioned appeals are same, the
appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. The captioned appeals under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 (For short “L.A. Act”) by the Special Land Acquisition
Officer, the Acquiring Body, being not satisfied with the
compensation determined by the learned Principle Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as the
“Reference Court”), in Land Acquisition Reference Cases
No.303/98, 313/98, 314/98, 315/98, 322/98, 323/98, 324/98 and
310/98, decided by the judgment and award dated 11.12.2006. The
operative order of the said judgment and award is reproduced as
follows:
Order:
1. The present land acquisition references cases are hereby
allowed.
2. It is ordered that opponents do pay additional
compensation to the claimants at the rate of Rs.300/- per
square meter over and above the amount of compensation
already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer.
3. The opponents are further ordered to pay an additional
amount of compensation at the rate of 12% on additional
amount of compensation awarded to the claimants according
to the provision of Section 23(1-A).
4. The opponents are further directed to pay the amount of
solatium at the rate of 30% on the additional amount of
compensation under Section 23(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
Page 2 of 9
C/FA/5204/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
5. The opponents are hereby ordered to pay interest on the
additional compensation at the rate of 9% from the date of
taking the possession or from the date of issuing notification
under Section 4 of the L.A. Act whichever is earlier for the first
year and thereafter, at the rate of 15% till realization of the
payable aggregated amount according to the provisions of
Section 28 of L.A. Act.
6. The opponents shall pay the proportionate cost and shall
bear their own cost.
3. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being considered from the lead
matter (First Appeal No.5204 of 2008-Land Reference Case
No.310 of 1998 wherein the common evidence came to be
recorded and arguments being advanced by the parties in the main
matter).
4. For the sake of brevity and convenience, the appellant being
referred as “acquiring body” and the respondents being referred as
“land owners”.
5. The facts in brief, necessary for adjudication of the captioned
appeals are as follows:
The land of the respondents-original land owners situated at
Village: Adalaj, Taluka: Gandhinagar, were acquired by the
acquiring body for the purpose of making road connecting with
Adalaj-Nabhoi-Koba link road. Notification under Section 4 of the
L.A. Act was issued on 23.12.1993. Section 6 notification was
issued on 24.11.1994. Possession was being taken on 30.09.1991.
Award under Section 11 of the L.A. Act was declared by the
Page 3 of 9
C/FA/5204/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
acquiring body on 30.01.1996 determining the rate of
compensation at the rate of Rs.8 per square meter and for some of
block numbers Rs.7 per square meter for such acquired agricultural
land. The land owners sought reference before the Reference Court
seeking enhancement in such compensation at the rate of Rs.300
per square meter. The Reference Court, by the impugned judgment
and award dated 11.12.2006, granted additional compensation at
the rate of Rs.300/- per square meter and other statutory benefits.
The award passed in group of land refence cases has been
challenged by the State Authorities in this group of appeals.
6. Before the Reference Court, the land reference cases being
consolidated with main LAR No.310 of 1998 for the purpose of
recording evidence. On behalf of the claimants, the land owner
Mahendrabhai Ravjibhai Patel being son and power of attorney
holder of Ravjibhai was examined at Exh.31. The claimants have
mainly relied upon the judgment (Exh.44) passed in LAR No.994
of 1998 and allied matters, passed by the Civil Judge, Gandhinagar
wherein the lands of Village: Adalaj were acquired as exemplar
award. In the said case, the additional amount of compensation at
the rate of Rs.200/- was awarded by the Reference Court. While
determining the market value of the land acquired, the Reference
Court in its award, more particularly in para-24 of the award,
observed thus:
“Looking to all aspects and documentary evidence
brought on record, I come to the conclusion that the
judgment was delivered by the learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Gandhinagar on 07/11/2006 in L.A.R.
Page 4 of 9
C/FA/5204/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
No.994/98 (Exh.44) of the lands of village Adalaj which are
just adjoining to the land of the present case as well as the
ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other
High Court of the different States are most applicable to the
present case and, therefore, after considering the judgment
as aforesaid and surrounding development area of the
disputed land, the applicants/claimants are entitled to get
the amount of latest award passed in the surrounding areas
land which are just adjacent to the disputed land after
publication of the notification. In the present case the
judgment Exh.44 is of the year 2006 which is latest one.
Therefore judgment Exh.44 of the lands of same village
Adalaj is the relevant and the material piece of evidence to
determine the market value potential value of the present
case. The notification u/s. 4 of the land acquisition Act was
published on 07/11/90 in L.A.R. No.994/98 (Exh.44) while in
the case on hand the notification u/s.4 was published on
23.12.1993. Looking to the time gap difference between
these two notifications, it appears that there is a time gap
difference of three years and hence the claimants are
entitled to get the amount of Rs.327/--[s.252/- per Sq.mtr. as
per judgment Exh.44 of same village Adalaj Plus Rs.75/- i.e.
10% prince rise of Rs.252/- for three years].
In view of the above discussion, the claimants are
entitled compensation at the rate of Rs.327/- per Sq.mtr as
discussed above. The land acquisition officer has already
awarded Rs.7/-- per Sq.mtr in L.A.R. Nos.303/98, 314/98,
315/98, 322/98, 323/98 and 324/98 and Rs.8/- per Sq.mtr in
L.A.R. Nos.313/98 and 310/98. Therefore, deducting Rs.7/-
from Rs.327/- it would be come to Rs.320/- per Sq.mtr.
Therefore, the claimants of L.A.R. Nos.303/98, 314/98,
315/98, 322/98, 323/98 and 324/98 are entitled to additional
compensation of Rs.320/- per Sq.mtr and claimants of L.A.R.
Nos.313/98 and 310/98 are entitled Rs.319/-[Rs.327/- minus
Rs.8/-] per Sq.mtr. It is pertinent to note that though the
claimants are entitled additional compensation at the rate of
Rs.319/- and Rs.320/- per Sq. mtr but unfortunately the
claimants have demanded only Rs.300/- per Sq.mtr. The
Court cannot grant more compensation then claim.
Therefore claimants are entitled Rs.300/- per Sq.mtr as
Page 5 of 9
C/FA/5204/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
discussed above.”
7. In such circumstances, the appellant-acquiring body, being
aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned award, is before this
Court with the captioned appeals.
8. Dr. Venugopal Patel, learned AGP while assailing the award,
submitted that, the Reference Court erred in placing reliance upon
the judgment of group of appeals, without undertaking an
independent assessment of comparability. Mere identity of the
village cannot justify adoption of the same rate. In the facts of
present case, the land acquired for the purpose of making link road
so as to connect it with the National and State Highway Road. The
acquired land was 6 kilometers away from the main road, whereas,
the land acquired for the relied upon judgment was near to the
highway. Thus, therefore, the Land Reference Court has not
undertaken an independent determination of the market value as
required under the law, but has mechanically adopted the rate from
the relied judgment without evaluating the necessary factors
governing the valuation including the requirement to consider
location, nature and potentiality of the land.
9. In such circumstances, it is submitted that, the claimants-land
owners had also relied on the judgment of Land Reference Cases
No.924 of 1998 and allied matters, wherein the Reference Court
had determined Rs.1750/- per square meter and same came to be
modified by this Court and rate was fixed Rs.231/- per square
meter and the land acquired of the Village: Sargasan was having all
potentiality and the T.P. Scheme was also sanctioned to the area
Page 6 of 9
C/FA/5204/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
and despite of this, the market value was determined at Rs.231/-.
Thus, compared to the development of Village: Sargasan, the rate
of Village: Adalaj could be accepted up to Rs.168/- per square
meter and therefore, having regard to the facts of the present case,
the award passed by the Reference Court does require interference
and by allowing the appeals, the reasonable market value may be
fixed and award may be modified accordingly.
10. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf
of the land owners has submitted that the Land Reference Court
has rightly determined their market value of the land as except
Exh. 44, the judgment delivered with respect to land acquired in
the same village i.e. Adalaj, no other evidence being available for
determination of the market value and therefore, the market value
based upon the exemplar which is the best exemplar available on
record and having considered the time gap of 3 years, the Land
Reference Court has not committed any error while adding 30% in
the price fixed by the relied judgment.
11. We have heard at length learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and perused the case records as well as the
impugned Award passed by the learned Reference Court.
12. In the case at hand, there is no dispute in respect of acquisition of
lands situated at village: Adalaj – Gandhinagar, for the purpose of
making link road as referred above. In support of their claim for
enhanced compensation for acquired land, the respondents land
owners led oral as well as documentary evidence and heavily relied
Page 7 of 9
C/FA/5204/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
on the award of the Land Reference Court (994 of 1998 and allied
matters). In the relied judgment, the lands of village: Adalaj for the
purpose of making road connecting with Gandhinagar – Khodiyar
Junction, were acquired by notification under Section 4 dated
07.11.1990. The land owners claimed enhanced amount by filing
References. The Reference Court relying upon the Award passed
for the lands of Adalaj and giving 10% rise as there was a gap of 5
years between the two notifications and finally, determined the
market value per sq.mt Rs.252/-. However, considering the claim
of Rs.200/-, Reference Court, did not grant Rs.250/- but enhanced
compensation upto to Rs.200/- per sq.mt. only. In such
circumstances, it is settled position of law that where more than
one exemplar is available on record, the land owner is entitled to
the benefit of the highest comparable value. Thus, the principle
followed by the Reference Court while adopting highest price
available for determination of the market value and in that view of
the matter, in the opinion of this Court, the Reference Court has
rightly determined the market value upon highest exemplar Exh.
44. In the present case and the judgment relied (Exh. 44), the
nature of lands are same and situated in the same village and thus,
the other factors which are relevant for determination of value, are
similar and identical with the exemplar relied by Reference Court
(Exh. 44).
13. In light of the above discussions, Land Reference Court has not
committed any error in determination of the market value of the
lands in question and we do no find any grounds to interfere with
Page 8 of 9
C/FA/5204/2008 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/07/2026
the well reasoned order passed by the Land Reference Court.
14. Accordingly, these appeals fail and are hereby dismissed.
However, there shall be no order as to costs. Records and
proceedings be transmitted to the Reference court forthwith. The
amount deposited by the acquiring body is permitted to be
withdrawn by the land owners with interest accrued thereon, if not
already withdrawn.
15. Registry is directed to keep copy of this judgment and order in
each matter.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
P.S. JOSHI
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: PALLAV SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI(HC00177), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 30/07/2026 12:58:18
Page 9 of 9
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