Allowed

Laxmanbhai Punjabhai v. Dy Collector Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Irrigation

Gujarat HC14 Jul 2022FA/3604/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Gujarat held that the learned Reference Court erred in discarding oral evidence and rejecting the District Valuation Committee report without objective evaluation. The Court quashed the impugned orders dismissing land acquisition reference cases and remanded them for afresh consideration within six months, allowing both parties to adduce evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and order of the Reference Court quashed; cases remanded for afresh consideration within six months; permit granted to both parties to adduce evidence within four weeks.

Laxmanbhai Punjabhai Vs Dy Collector Land Acquisition and… — Land Acquisition | Gujarat HC (2022)

¶1

C/FA/4152/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

¶3

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4152 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3583 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3584 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3585 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3586 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3587 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3588 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3589 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3590 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3591 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3592 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3593 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3594 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3595 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3596 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3597 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3598 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3599 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3600 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3601 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3602 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3603 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3604 of 2021 With R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3605 of 2021

¶4

Page 1 of 4

¶5

C/FA/4152/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2022

¶6

With

¶7

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3606 of 2021

¶8

==========================================================

¶9

JAGABHAI HAMIRBHAI

¶10

Versus

¶11

DY COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION AND REHABILITATION (IRRIGATION)

¶12

========================================================== Appearance:

¶13

MR GM AMIN(124) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Defendant(s) No. 2

¶14

MR MANRAJ BAROT AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 1

¶15

==========================================================

¶16

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE Date : 14/07/2022 COMMON ORAL ORDER

¶17

1. The present First Appeals arise out of impugned judgment and order passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Lalpur, whereby the land reference cases are dismissed by the learned Reference Court. First Appeal Nos.4152/2021,3591/2021 to 3606/2021 are the First Appeals concerning the lands acquired in Village Nana Khadba, whereas First Appeal Nos.3583/2021 to 3590/2021 are the First Appeals concerning the lands acquired in Village Badhla. Both the villages are near to each other and the lands have been acquired for the same purpose. Broadly, all the land reference cases have been dismissed on the ground that only oral evidence was led by the claimants and the reliance has been placed on the decision of the District Valuation Committee for valuation of the land in different villages. In all these cases, the learned Reference Court, after examining the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, has held that the claimants have miserably failed to establish their claim and therefore, they are not entitled to the enhanced compensation. In all these cases, the respondent State Government has not remained present and no evidence is adduced on behalf of the State. Ultimately, all the land reference cases have been dismissed. Hence, the present First Appeals are preferred by the claimants.

¶18

Page 2 of 4

¶19

C/FA/4152/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2022

¶20

2. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

¶21

3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat and ors. vs. Rama Rana and ors. [(1997) 2 SCC 693] has held that it is the duty of the learned Reference Court to evaluate the evidence objectively and dispassionately to reach the finding on just and appropriate compensation. In the present case, the claimants had relied upon oral evidence of the witnesses and also produced agenda of the District Valuation Committee. While discarding the oral evidence, the learned Reference Court also rejected the valuation determined by the District Valuation Committee holding it to be mere proposal without any evidence in support thereof to prove the same. This Court in case of State of Gujarat vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore [2010(3) GLH 447] has held as under :-

¶22

“27. The Apex Court in the case of Lal Chand v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 15 SCC, 769 on the contrary at paragraph 44 has observed as under:-

¶23

“44. One of the recognised methods for determination of market value is with reference to the opinion of experts. The estimation of market value by such statutorily constituted Expert Committee, as expert evidence can therefore form the basis for determining the market value in land acquisition cases, as a relevant piece of evidence. It will be however open to either party to place evidence to dislodge the presumption that may flow from such guideline market value. We, however, hasten to add that the guideline market value can be a relevant piece of evidence only if they are assessed by the statutorily appointed Expert Committees, in accordance with the prescribed procedure.”

¶24

28. In the present case, the valuation has been made by the Valuation Committee for giving opinion to the District Collector in exercise of the statutory power. The Valuation Committee is comprising of the expert body in the field of valuation, including the District Collector himself, T.P. Authority, etc. Therefore, there is no reason why the valuation made by the Valuation Committee of the Government for fixation of the price for allotment of the land at the very village by way of sale instance or price fixed by the Government for allotment of a land to an organization should not be taken into consideration.”

¶25

Page 3 of 4

¶26

C/FA/4152/2021 ORDER DATED: 14/07/2022

¶27

4. In the present case, it is seen that the learned Reference Court has fell in error in not objectively evaluating the oral evidence of the claimants as well as in discarding the valuation report of the District Valuation Committee, without examining the present matters on merits. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment and order passed by learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Lalpur is required to be quashed and set aside and the matters are to be remanded back for afresh consideration. Since, in the present case, the State Government has not remained present and has not produced any evidence in the land reference cases, in the interest of justice, it will be open for the appellants - claimants as well as the State Government to produce the evidence in support of their case within a period of four weeks from the date they appear before the learned Reference Court upon remand. The learned Reference Court is thereafter directed to decide the reference cases within a period of six months.

¶28

5. The parties undertake to cooperate with the speedy disposal of the cases.

¶29

6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the learned Reference Court is directed to decide the reference cases afresh in accordance with law.

¶30

7. Accordingly, the First Appeals are allowed. Impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.

¶31

8. The record & proceedings be sent back to the Reference Court within a period of two weeks from today.

¶32

(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.)

¶33

cmk

¶34

Page 4 of 4

Laxmanbhai Punjabhai v. Dy Collector Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Irrigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxmanbhai Punjabhai v. Dy Collector Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Irrigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divyaben W/O Ashokbhai Parbatbhai Odedara Vs State of Gujarat

Abdulrahim Mahammadsaid Makrani Vs Akhtarbhai Abdulmasjid Gori

Iqbalbhai Ahemadji Rjaiwala Vs Gujarat State Wakf Board

Jagabhai Hamirbhai Vs Dy Collector Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation (Irrigation)

Devyat Veja Vs Dy Collector Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Irrigation

Diltaj Umar Vs Dy Collector Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Irrigation