{"id":41144,"date":"2011-07-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011"},"modified":"2017-01-15T22:49:38","modified_gmt":"2017-01-15T17:19:38","slug":"special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Jayant Patel, R.M.Chhaya,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nFA\/1153\/2002\t 12\/ 12\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No.1153 of 2002\n \n\nTo\n\n\n \n\nFIRST\nAPPEAL No.1172 of 2002\n \n\n For\nApproval and Signature:\n \n\nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\t\tSd\/-\n \n\n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA\t\tSd\/-\n \n\n=====================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nYES\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n=====================================================\n \n\nSPECIAL\nLAND ACQUISITION OFFICER - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nLILAVATIBEN\nKODAR RANCHHOD & 4 - Defendant(s)\n \n\n===================================================== \nAppearance\n: \nMS MOXA THAKKAR, AGP for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR MEHUL S SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1 - 5. \nMR\nSURESH M SHAH for Defendant(s) : 1 -\n5. \n=====================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n           \n\t\t\tand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 04\/07\/2011 \n\n \n\n COMMON\nORAL JUDGMENT<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)<\/p>\n
As
\n\tall the appeals arise from the common judgment and order passed by
\n\tthe Reference Court, they are being considered by this common
\n\tjudgment.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\trelevant facts of the case are that for the project of Dadhod
\n\tOutside City Diversion Road, lands located at Dahod Kasba outskirts
\n\tof Dahod city within the municipal area were to be acquired under
\n\tthe Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as
\n\t‘the Act’). Notification under Section 4 of the Act was published on
\n\t11.10.1985 and notification under section 6 of the Act was published
\n\ton 05.09.1986. Thereafter\u00a0award was passed by the Land
\n\tAcquisition Officer under section 11 of the Act on 26.06.1988
\n\twhereby, on account of different fertility, topography and location
\n\tof the lands, he awarded Rs.8\/sq.mtr. for the fertile land,
\n\tRs.6\/sq.mtr. for Jirayat land and Rs.4\/sq.mtr. for the other
\n\tremaining land. As the lands owners\/original claimants were not
\n\tsatisfied with the said compensations, they raised dispute under
\n\tsection 18 of the Act and demanded compensation of Rs.70\/sq.mtr. and
\n\t subsequently enhanced the demand to Rs.250\/sq.mtr. All such
\n\tdisputes were referred to the Reference Court for adjudication being
\n\tLand Acquisition Case Nos.283\/89 to 304\/89. The Reference Court, at
\n\tthe conclusion of the references, awarded the additional
\n\tcompensation at Rs.45\/sq.mtr. with other statutory benefits of
\n\tincrease in the market value, solatium and interest. It is under
\n\tthese circumstances, the present group of appeals before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
We
\n\thave considered the judgment and the reasons recorded by the
\n\tReference Court as
\n\twell as
\n\trecord and proceedings and we have also heard Ms.Moxa
\n\tThakkar, learned A.G.P. for the appellants and Mr.Mehul Shah for the
\n\toriginal claimants\/respondents.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tperusal of the reasons recorded by the Reference Court show that the
\n\tmain reasoning begins from Paragraph No.16 of the judgment and the
\n\tReference Court has broadly discarded the evidence of sale
\n\tinstances, including one which was produced at Exh.72 for the land,
\n\tadmeasuring 534.38 sq. mtrs. wherein the price was of
\n\tRs.93.156\/sq.mtr., on the ground that such sale instance was for
\n\tnon-agricultural land used for residential area. However, the
\n\tanother pertinent aspect is that the
\n\tReference Court,
\n\twhile arriving at the finding for the additional compensation at
\n\tRs.45\/sq.mtr. has not elaborated the reasons for arriving at the
\n\tsaid figure of Rs.45\/-sq.mtr. Therefore, we find that even if the
\n\tReference Court was
\n\tto arrive at the figure of Rs.45\/-sq.mtr. as the additional
\n\tcompensation, it was expected from the
\n\tReference Court to
\n\texamine the facts and figures as available, including the sale
\n\tinstances or otherwise and thereafter to record the conclusion for
\n\tthe quantum of the additional amount
\n\tof compensation. Unfortunately, the said aspect is not available in
\n\tthe impugned\u00a0judgment of the Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever,
\n\tas the present appeals are continuous proceedings of the reference
\n\tto be adjudicated by the Reference Court and we have called for the
\n\trecord and proceedings, we find that the only sale instance, which
\n\tcould be considered for the purpose of tracing the market value of
\n\tthe lands, is the document Exh.72 dated 20.06.1983, which is for the
\n\tland bearing Survey No.754\/4 paiki and the area of which is
\n\tadmeasuring 534.38 sq.mtrs. Another aspect is that the sale deed is
\n\tprior to the notification under section 4 of the Act in the
\n\tpresent\u00a0case and, therefore, the same could be taken into
\n\tconsideration by the Reference Court. We are inclined to observe the
\n\taforesaid because there was no other satisfactory evidence either to
\n\tapplying the yield method or of any other awards passed by any
\n\tcompetent court for the land of the adjoining area in the matter of
\n\tland acquisition. It is also required to be taken into consideration
\n\tthat merely because the sale instances are of the lands, which are
\n\tnon-agricultural lands, the same itself will not be a sufficient
\n\tground to discard the evidence unless  the Reference Court finds
\n\tthat the sale instances are not of the lands of the comparable area.
\n\tThe area in the present acquisition varies from 151 sq.mtrs. to 5059
\n\tsq.mtrs. and if the holding of each claimant is to be considered
\n\tvis-a-vis the area under acquisition, the land acquired of about 40%
\n\tof the claimants is not exceeding 700-800 sq.mtrs. Under these
\n\tcircumstances, we find that it was a case to consider the sale
\n\tinstances even after considering the character of the land of the
\n\tsale instance as non-agricultural land. At this stage, we may refer
\n\tto the decision of this Court in case of  State of Gujarat,
\n\tThrough Special Land Acquisition Officer & Anr., Vs. Amraji
\n\tMohanji Thakore, reported in 2010 (3) G.L.H. 447 wherein there
\n\twas sale instance of more or less similar area and, therefore, the
\n\tcourt applied the principle of 30% deduction while comparing the
\n\tprice of non-agricultural land but the relevant aspect is that in
\n\tthe said decision this Court extracted the earlier view of this
\n\tCourt in case of Sardar Sarovar Vs. Patel Haribhai Manilal,
\n\tin First Appeal No.2832 of 2006 to 2843 of 2006 decided on
\n\t09.07.2007 and it was recorded as under:\n<\/p>\n
“14.\tBefore
\nwe proceed to examine the other aspects, we may profitably extract
\nthe views of this Court (Coram: J.M.Panchal & Smt. Abhilasha
\nKumari, J.J.) in the case of Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam
\nLimited v. Patel Haribhai Manilal (First Appeal No.2832 of 2006 to
\n2843 of 2006) decided on 9.7.2007.\n<\/p>\n
 In the said case, the sale
\ninstances considered by the Special Land Acquisition Officer were not
\nproved and there was sale instance for allotment of the land by the
\nGovernment to Anarde Foundation and the land under acquisition was
\nalso at Village Modhera.  When the question arose for determination
\nof the market price of the land in question therein, for the purpose
\nof awarding compensation by the Reference Court, this Court observed
\nas under at paragraph 12 :-\n<\/p>\n
“12.\tThe
\n\tprinciples governing determination of market value of lands acquired
\n\tare well-settled. In Special Land Acquisition Officer,
\n\tDavangere v. P.Veerabhadrappa etc. etc. – AIR 1984 SC 774,
\n\tthe Supreme Court has emphasized that the function of the Court in
\n\tawarding compensation under the Act is to ascertain the market value
\n\tof the land on the date of notification under Section 4(1) of the
\n\tAct. What is ruled therein is that the methods of valuation are (1)
\n\topinion of experts, (2) the prices paid within a reasonable time in
\n\tbona fide transactions of purchase or sale of the lands acquired or
\n\tof the lands adjacent to those acquired and possessing similar
\n\tadvantages and (3) a number of years’ purchase of the actual or
\n\timmediately prospective profits of the lands acquired. The Supreme
\n\tCourt has cautioned that normally, the method of capitalizing the
\n\tactual or immediately prospective profits or the rent of a number of
\n\tyears’ purchase should not be resorted to if there is evidence of
\n\tcomparable sales or other evidence for computation of the market
\n\tvalue. Applying these principles to the facts of the instant case,
\n\tthis Court finds that the claimants did not lead evidence of an
\n\texpert nor enhanced compensation was claimed on yield basis to
\n\tenable the Court to determine the market value of the lands
\n\tacquired.  The only relevant pieces of evidence produced by the
\n\tclaimants in the instant case are the sale-deeds relating to the
\n\tgrant of Government lands to Anarde Foundation at Ex.13 and to Umiya
\n\tKadva Patidar Trust at Ex.17 which will now be examined by this
\n\tCourt.\n<\/p>\n
\tExhibit 13 is the order of
\n\tCollector, Mehsana, dated December 4, 1994,  whereby land
\n\tadmeasuring 501.66 sq.mts. forming part of Survey No.1119 of village
\n\tModhera was granted to Anarde Foundation pursuant to an application
\n\tmade by it for allotment of land for construction of office premises
\n\tfor development programme which was undertaken by the said
\n\tFoundation in rural areas.  A perusal of Ex.13 reveals that the land
\n\tallotted to Anarde Foundation vide order dated December 4, 1994, was
\n\tnon-agricultural land. Initially, this land was allotted at the rate
\n\tof Rs.40\/- per sq.mt. However, it was stipulated in the said order
\n\tthat the market value of the land on the date of order, i.e.
\n\tDecember 4, 1994, would be one which would be determined by the
\n\tDeputy Town Planner and the price so determined would be considered
\n\tto be relevant market value. The record reveals that the market
\n\tvalue of the land allotted to Anarde Foundation was determined at
\n\tRs.65\/- per sq.mt., which is quite evident from the order dated
\n\tSeptember 21, 1998, passed by the Collector, Mehsana, produced at
\n\tEx.14.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe
\n\tother sale instance relied upon by the claimants is to be found at
\n\tEx.17, which relates to sale of Government land to Umiya Kadva
\n\tPatidar Trust. Exhibit 17 further shows that the Collector passed an
\n\torder in this regard on October 16, 1998 and the market value of the
\n\tland admeasuring 186 sq.mts. of part of Survey No.1245 of village
\n\tModhera, Taluka: Becharaji, was determined at the rate of Rs.160\/-
\n\tper sq.mt. On re-appreciation of evidence on the record, this Court
\n\tfinds that the notification under Section 4(1) of the Act in the
\n\tinstant case was published in the official gazette on July 27, 1995,
\n\twhereas the sale instance at Ex.17 regarding allotment of Government
\n\tland to Umiya Kadva Patidar Trust was effected after publication of
\n\tsaid notification and therefore, post notification instance should
\n\tnot be taken into consideration while determining the market value
\n\tof the lands acquired as it is common knowledge that the prices of
\n\tlands in the vicinity would escalate after
\n\tthe notification under Section 4(1) of the Act is published.”\n<\/p>\n
15.\tFurther in the very decision,
\nwhen the Court had to consider the market value, keeping in view the
\nsale instances of the allotment of the land by the Government to the
\naforesaid Trust, it was observed, thus, at paragraphs 17 and 18 :-\n<\/p>\n
“17.In
\n\tthe ultimate analysis, this Court is of the opinion that the
\n\tallotment of land vide order dated December 4, 1994, produced at
\n\tEx.13 passed by the Collector, Mehsana, is the only relevant piece
\n\tof evidence which would enable the Court to determine the market
\n\tvalue of the acquired lands. It is well-settled that for
\n\tdetermination of compensation for a large area, rate fixed for
\n\tsmaller plot can be taken into consideration when there is absence
\n\tof other material evidence (See: Ravinder Narain and
\n\tanother v. Union of India (2003)4 SCC 481).\n<\/p>\n
\tTherefore, this Court proposes to consider effect of Ex.13. As
\n\tnoticed earlier, the order allotting land dated October 16, 1998
\n\t(Ex.17) cannot be considered since it was passed after the issuance
\n\tof the notification under Section 4 of the Act in the present
\n\tacquisition proceedings. Exhibit 13, which is the order regarding
\n\tgrant of Government land  to Anarde Foundation indicates that the
\n\tlands which were subject matter of grant were non-agricultural
\n\tlands. Moreover, the piece of land was small compared to the
\n\tacquired lands. Therefore, appropriate deductions will have to be
\n\tmade on account of the fact that the acquired lands in the instant
\n\tcase were agricultural lands and large tracts of lands were
\n\tacquired.\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tis a settled principle of law that where the acquired lands are
\n\tagricultural lands, their valuation would differ to a considerable
\n\textent from the lands which are non-agricultural lands and that
\n\twhere a large area of land is subject matter of acquisition, certain
\n\tdeductions will have to be made if the market price of the acquired
\n\tlands has to be determined on the basis of rate fixed for small
\n\tplots. Moreover, some amount will have to be deducted towards
\n\tdevelopment charges. After
\n\tmaking deductions on the above counts, the market value of the lands
\n\tacquired will have to be determined. Keeping the above principles in
\n\tmind, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be
\n\tserved if 40% from the market price of the land which was subject
\n\tmatter of sale vide Ex.13 as on December 4, 1994, is deducted under
\n\tthe heads of smallness of plot, non-agricultural land and
\n\tdevelopment charges collectively while determining the market value
\n\tof the lands acquired in the instant cases. The market value of the
\n\tland granted vide order dated December 4, 1994, has been determined
\n\tat Rs.65\/- per sq.mt. After deducting 40% from this amount, the
\n\tamount that comes is Rs.39\/- per sq.mt. The said sale took place
\n\tvide order dated December 4, 1994, whereas the notification under
\n\tSection 4 of the Act for the acquisition of lands of village Modhera
\n\twas published on July 27, 1995. Therefore, there is a gap of about
\n\tsix months between the two.  If 5% rise in price of land is given,
\n\tthe amount comes to Rs.41\/- per sq.mt. which is the total amount of
\n\tcompensation to which the claimants are entitled. Thus, this Court
\n\tis of the opinion that the claimants would be entitled to
\n\tcompensation at the rate of Rs.41\/- per sq.mt. and not at the rate
\n\tof Rs.54.57 ps. per sq.mt. as held by the Reference Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.   In view of the above
\n\tdiscussion, the Appeals will have to be partly allowed by holding
\n\tthat the claimants in the instant cases would be entitled to
\n\tcompensation in all at the rate of Rs.41\/- per sq.mt. and to that
\n\textent, the Award rendered by the Reference Court will have to be
\n\tmodified.”\n<\/p>\n
16.   The aforesaid shows two
\naspects; one is that the sale instance or the price at which the
\nGovernment has allotted the land can be taken into consideration by
\nthe Reference Court at the time of assessing the market value for the
\npurpose of awarding compensation under the Act, and the second is the
\ndeduction to be made keeping in view the size of the plot allotted by
\nthe Government and the land under acquisition, the nature of use, the
\nlocality and other factors namely; that agricultural use,
\nnon-agricultural use and others.  It is true that in the said case,
\nthis Court found it proper to deduct 40% of the amount from the price
\nat which the Government had allotted the land to the said Trust, but
\nit appears that certain aspects, which did not arise for
\nconsideration in the said matter, do arise for consideration in the
\npresent group of matters, which shall be dealt with hereinafter.”\n<\/p>\n
\tWe find
\n\tthat the observations made in the above\u00a0referred decision would
\n\tsquarely apply to the facts of the present\u00a0case keeping in view
\n\tthat 60% of the lands under\u00a0acquisition are of a much larger
\n\tarea and only 40% of the lands under acquisition are not exceeding
\n\tabout 700-800 sq.mtrs. Therefore, if the\u00a0aforesaid sale
\n\tinstance at Exh.72 is taken into consideration and 40% deduction is
\n\tmade in the said sale price of Rs.93\/sq.mtr. (rounded figure), 40%
\n\tof the said amount would come to Rs.37.20\/sq.mtr., which if deducted
\n\tfrom Rs.93\/sq.mtr. the net figure would come to Rs.55.80\/sq.mtr. and
\n\tif rounded off it would come to Rs.56\/sq.mtr. It is also required to
\n\tbe taken into consideration that as observed earlier in respect of
\n\t60% of the lands, which are under acquisition, the area is much
\n\tlarger and, therefore, in addition to the\u00a0deduction of N.A.
\n\tfactor area is the difference between agricultural and
\n\tnon-agricultural lands, the additional deduction would be required
\n\tto be made qua the large difference of the size of the lands, which
\n\tare to be acquired and the size of the plot which is referred to in
\n\tthe sale instance. Therefore, we find that considering the facts and
\n\tcircumstances out of the amount of Rs.56\/sq.mtr. there should be
\n\tadditional deduction of 20% towards the\u00a0size difference of the
\n\tplots and if the largest plot is considered, it is about 9-10 times
\n\tmore than the area of the land shows in the sale deed. So 20% of the
\n\tsaid amount would come to Rs.11.20\/sq.mtr. and if deducted from
\n\tRs.56\/- it would come to Rs.44.80\/- and if the said figure is
\n\trounded off, it would come to Rs.45\/sq.mtr. As against the same the
\n\tReference Court has awarded Rs.45\/sq.mtr. as the additional
\n\tcompensation. Under the circumstances, we find that the decision of
\n\tthe Reference Court for awarding Rs.45\/sq.mtr. as the additional
\n\tcompensation for the land in question, which is having best quality
\n\tviz. fertile land, could not be said as erroneous.\n<\/p>\n
\tHowever,
\n\tthe same cannot be the additional compensation for the lands which
\n\tare classified as Jirayat land and the land of the other remaining
\n\tcategory for which the Special Land Acquisition Officer, on account
\n\tof the distinguishing character and the fertility of the land, has
\n\tawarded compensation at Rs.6\/sq.mtr. for Jirayat land and
\n\tRs.4\/sq.mtr. for the other remaining land. We have gone through the
\n\taward passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and even in the
\n\tjudgment or in the evidence there is no material produced on behalf
\n\tof the claimants to show that the character of all the lands was the
\n\tsame and in spite of the said aspect, the Special Land Acquisition
\n\tOfficer has awarded different amount of compensation. Under these
\n\tcircumstances, we find that the distinction in the nature of the
\n\tlands viz. fertile land or Jirayat land or remaining land could not
\n\thave been ignored by the Reference Court
\n\tand the said aspect is required to be taken into consideration for
\n\tthe purpose of deciding the additional compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs such
\n\tif the distinction is considered as it is there has to be a
\n\tproportionate deduction in the compensation of Rs.45\/sq.mtr. taking
\n\tinto consideration the amount of Rs.6\/sq.mtr. and Rs.4\/sq.mtr. as
\n\tawarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer for the Jirayat and
\n\tother remaining lands after taking the basis of the fertile land for
\n\twhich the Special Land Acquisition Officer has awarded the
\n\tcompensation at Rs.8\/sq.mtr. and the proportionate deduction thereof
\n\tbut Mr.Shah learned Counsel appearing for the original
\n\tclaimants\/respondents contended that all the lands were located
\n\twithin Dahod and, therefore, if this Court has already reduced the
\n\tprice towards N.A. factor and the valuation of the agricultural land
\n\thas further reduced on account of the difference of size of the sale
\n\tinstances and the lands under acquisition, the said aspect would not
\n\tassume much importance since all the lands are within Dahod city. He
\n\tfurther submitted that therefore, this Court may not further
\n\tdistinguish the land for the purpose of additional compensation.\n<\/p>\n
\tWe find
\n\tthat the aspect of inclusion of all the lands in municipal area is
\n\tone of the positive characters which is required to be taken into
\n\tconsideration while distinguishing the market value of the lands
\n\tviz. fertile, Jirayat and other remaining lands but, at the same
\n\ttime, it cannot be said in absolute that even if the lands are
\n\tlocated within the municipal area, the\u00a0value of Jirayat and
\n\tother remaining lands would be the same or at par with the fertile
\n\tland. Therefore, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances that all
\n\tlands are located within the municipal area, we find that the
\n\tdifference as was made by the Special Land Acquisition Officer
\n\tbetween the fertile and Jirayat lands and other remaining land can
\n\tbe reduced @ 50% and the amount of additional compensation can be
\n\tdecided. If the difference between the fertile and Jirayat lands is
\n\treduced to 50%, proportionately such amount for Jirayat land would
\n\tcome to Rs.39.37\/sq.mtr., if\u00a0rounded off it would come to
\n\tRs.40\/sq.mtr. taking the basis of Rs.7\/sq.mtr. as against
\n\tRs.6\/sq.mtr. assessed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer after
\n\tconsidering the base of Rs.8\/sq.mtr. for the fertile land. In the
\n\tsame manner if the different is proportionately to be considered for
\n\tthe other remaining land it would come to Rs.28.12\/sq.mtr. and if
\n\trounded off it would come to Rs.28\/sq.mtr. taking the base of
\n\tRs.5\/sq.mtr. as against Rs.4\/sq.mtr. assessed by the Special Land
\n\tAcquisition Officer after considering the base of Rs.8\/sq.mtr. for
\n\tthe fertile land. Under the above circumstances, the judgment and
\n\taward of the Reference Court would be required to be modified.\n<\/p>\n
\tAs
\n\tregards the other benefits awarded by the Reference Court of the
\n\tincrease in the market value, solatium and interest are concerned,
\n\tthey are all statutory in nature and, therefore, the same are not
\n\trequired to be interfered with, save and except to the extent that
\n\tall such amount shall get proportionately reduced on account of
\n\treduction of the principal amount of compensation in respect of
\n\tJirayat and other remaining lands but there will not be any change
\n\tfor the fertile land wherein the compensation is fixed at
\n\tRs.45\/sq.mtr.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn view
\n\tof the above discussion, the judgment and award passed by the
\n\tReference Court, so far as awarding additional compensation of
\n\tRs.45\/sq.mtr. for the fertile land is concerned, the same is not
\n\tinterfered with. However, the judgment and award of the
\n\tReference Court so far it relates to awarding additional
\n\tcompensation for the Jirayat and other remaining lands\u00a0exceeding
\n\tthe amount of Rs.40\/sq.mtr. and Rs.28\/sq.mtr. is quashed and set
\n\taside and it is declared that the additional compensation for
\n\tJirayat land shall be Rs.40\/sq.mtr. and for other remaining land
\n\tshall be Rs.28\/sq.mtr. Other statutory benefits would also be
\n\tavailable to the lands owners on the aforesaid principal amount of
\n\tcompensation as awarded by the Reference
\n\tCourt with the proportionate reduction thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\tAppeals
\n\tare partly allowed to the aforesaid extent. Considering the facts
\n\tand circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tLearned
\n\tadvocate for the respondents-claimants submitted that the
\n\tcompensation, if not deposited, may be directed to be deposited
\n\twithin some time. Considering the facts and circumstances,
\n\tif the compensation is not deposited as per the present judgment and
\n\torder, the same shall be deposited within a period of 08 (eight)
\n\tweeks from the receipt of copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
[JAYANT
\nPATEL,J]<\/p>\n
Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
[
\nR.M.CHHAYA, J]<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Bhavesh*<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011 Author: Jayant Patel, R.M.Chhaya, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print FA\/1153\/2002 12\/ 12 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No.1153 of 2002 To FIRST APPEAL No.1172 of 2002 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Sd\/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSpecial vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-01-15T17:19:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-15T17:19:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3663,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-01-15T17:19:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-01-15T17:19:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-15T17:19:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011"},"wordCount":3663,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011","name":"Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-01-15T17:19:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/special-vs-lilavatiben-on-4-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Special vs Lilavatiben on 4 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41144","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41144"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41144\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41144"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41144"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41144"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}