GENERAL MANAGER vs PATEL GANDABHAI MULJIBHAI (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HEIRS AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES)

C/FA/172/2016 (GJHC240418042016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 172 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 173 of 2016
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 174 of 2016

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
PATEL GANDABHAI MULJIBHAI (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH HEIRS
AND LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS KJ BRAHMBHATT(202) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES
for the Defendant(s) No. 1
MS SURBHI S. BHATI, AGP for the Defendant(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 31/08/2026

COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)
1. These First Appeals have been preferred under Section 54 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 96 of the Code of
Page 1 of 9
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:17:11 IST 2026

C/FA/172/2016 (GJHC240418042016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
Civil Procedure, 1908, by the appellants Special Land Acquisition
Officer and the Acquiring Authority challenging the judgment and
award dated 13/02/2014, passed by the learned Principal Senior
Civil Judge, Kadi, District Mehsana, in Land Acquisition Reference
(L.A.R.) No. 960 to 962 of 2013. By the impugned judgment and
award, the learned Reference Court partly allowed the reference
application filed by the respondent-claimants, enhancing the
compensation for the acquired agricultural land from Rs.39.00 per
square meter, as originally awarded by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer, to Rs.298.00 per square meter. Aggrieved by
this enhancement of Rs.259.00 per square meter along with the
statutory benefits and interest, the appellants have approached this
Court seeking to quash and set aside the judgment of the learned
Reference Court.
2. The essential facts necessary for the disposal of the present
appeals are summarized as under:
2.1 The State Government initiated acquisition proceedings for
lands situated at Moje Nanikadi, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana, for
a public purpose. The preliminary notification under Section 4 of
the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was published on 28/04/2009.
Following the statutory procedure under the Act, the Special Land
Acquisition Officer declared the award, determining the market
value of the acquired agricultural land at Rs.39.00 per square
meter. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, which the landowners deemed grossly
inadequate, the respondent-claimants submitted a reference under
Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act before the Collector, who
referred the matter to the Civil Court, Kadi, where it was
registered as L.A.R. No. 960 of 2013.
Page 2 of 9
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:17:11 IST 2026

C/FA/172/2016 (GJHC240418042016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
3. Before the learned Reference Court, the claimants contended
that the land possessed high potentiality due to its close proximity
to Kadi town and industrial developments. Neither party produced
direct registered sale exemplars of immediate adjacent agricultural
lands. However, reliance was placed on Exhibit 22, the official
proceedings of the District Valuation Committee meeting held for
lands in the same village. As per Exh. 22, the Town Planner,
Mehsana, had initially opined the rate of land to be Rs.330.00 per
square meter. The District Valuation Committee, considering the
rapid urbanization and proximity of Nanikadi to Kadi town,
determined the market rate for non-agricultural land at Rs.600.00
per square meter as of 22/11/2006.
4. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadi, applied a 30%
reduction to convert non-agricultural rates to agricultural rates,
and a further 30% reduction (totaling a 60% deduction) considering
the location relative to the main town. This yielded a baseline price
of Rs.240.00 per square meter as of 22/11/2006. Accounting for the
gap of 2 years and 5 months between the committee's valuation
and the Section 4 notification (28/04/2009), the court granted an
annual price rise of 10% per annum (Rs.58.00 per square meter),
determining the total market value at Rs.298.00 per square meter.
Deducting the initial rate of Rs.39.00 paid by the SLAO, the
Reference Court awarded an additional compensation of Rs.259.00
per square meter together with statutory benefits.
5. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants
has assailed the judgment of the learned Reference Court on the
following grounds:
5.1 The learned Reference Court committed a serious error by
relying solely on Exh. 22 (the District Valuation Committee Report)
Page 3 of 9
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:17:11 IST 2026

C/FA/172/2016 (GJHC240418042016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
in the absence of registered sale deeds or base exemplars of the
immediate vicinity. It was contended that valuation reports
prepared for granting non-agricultural permission under Section 43
of the Tenancy Act cannot form the sole evidentiary base under the
Land Acquisition Act.
5.2 The court below failed to appreciate that judgments
regarding nearby lands of the same village produced at Exh. 13 and
14 were available and ought to have been treated as the best
evidence for fixing compensation.
5.3 The enhancement from Rs.39.00 to Rs.298.00 per square
meter is exorbitant, excessive, and arbitrary, unsupported by
concrete evidence of actual sale transactions in the village.
5.4 Relying on an earlier decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
pertaining to the same village wherein compensation was affirmed
at Rs.124.00 per square meter, the Learned Advocate submitted
that applying a standard 10% cumulative increase over a period of
10 years would at best bring the rate to approximately Rs.200.00
per square meter. Therefore, adopting a base rate of Rs.240.00
derived from the committee report is unjustifiable.
5.5 In support of her contentions, the Learned Advocate for the
appellants has placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. Mehrawal Khewaji Trust (Regd.), Faridkot and Ors. v.
State of Punjab and Ors., reported in 2012 (2) G.L.H.
318 (Civil Appeal No. 4005 of 2012) ;
2. Judgment of this Hon'ble Court passed in First Appeal
No. 114 of 2010 dated 01/08/2025 ;
3. Judgment of this Hon'ble Court passed in First Appeal
Page 4 of 9
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:17:11 IST 2026

C/FA/172/2016 (GJHC240418042016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
No. 2412 of 2010 dated 23/06/2025 ; and
4. Shivlal Keshavlal Shah v. Additional Special Land
Acquisition Officer , passed by this Hon'ble Court in First
Appeal No. 745 of 1960 on 02/11/1966 .
6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent-claimants supported the findings of the learned
Reference Court and submitted as under:
6.1 Neither party had produced direct registered sale exemplars
of similar agricultural lands before the Reference Court. Raising an
objection at the appellate stage regarding the lack of sale deeds
without placing alternative material before the trial court is an
afterthought.
6.2 In the absence of primary sale exemplars, the official report
of the District Valuation Committee report at Exh.22 serves as an
objective, fair, and reliable basis for determining prevailing market
rates.
6.3 Addressing the appellant's reliance on the Supreme Court
judgment of Rs.124.00 per square meter, the valuation fixed by the
District Valuation Committee represents a subsequent development
post that decision. During the interregnum period between the
earlier judicial determinations and the Section 4 notification of the
present acquisition, extensive development took place around Kadi
town and Nanikadi, which cannot be ignored.
6.4 The Reference Court took a realistic approach by applying a
substantial overall deduction of 60% on the committee's non-
agricultural rate to arrive at a reasonable agricultural land value.
6.5 In support of the submission that the District Valuation
Page 5 of 9
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:17:11 IST 2026

C/FA/172/2016 (GJHC240418042016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
Committee report constitutes a valid and reliable evidentiary basis
for determining market value, the learned counsel for the
respondent placed reliance on the decision of this Court in State of
Gujarat Through Spl. Land Acquisition Officer v. Amaji
Mohanji Thakore, reported in 2010 (3) GLH 447 , wherein it
has been held as under:
“25. ...Be it noted that the Collector has to exercise the
power subject to general orders of the State
Government for the mode and manner of fixation of the
valuation and the Collector, therefore, while fixing the
market price has to take into consideration the view of
an expert body, which is the Valuation Committee and
thereafter to take final decision.
....At the time when the premium is to be fixed the
market price of the land is to be ascertained by the
Valuation Committee of the Government and the
opinion is to be considered by the Collector of the
valuation made. Therefore, it is not possible for us to
accept the contention of the learned Addl. Government
Pleader that the valuation made by the Valuation
Committee of the Government of the nearby land for the
purpose of allotment of the land to any citizen by the
Collector cannot be taken into consideration by the
Reference Court...."
“27. Learned counsel further highlighted the
reference made therein to the Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgment in Lal Chand v. Union of India , reported in
(2009) 15 SCC 769 , wherein Paragraph 44 reads as
under:
“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
Page 6 of 9
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:17:11 IST 2026

C/FA/172/2016 (GJHC240418042016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
assessed by the statutorily appointed Expert
Committees, in accordance with the prescribed
procedure."
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both sides, and
we have carefully perused the Trial court record and impugned
judgment. On the Use of the District Valuation Committee Report
at Exh.22, the primary contention of the appellant is that the
Reference Court erred in determining market value based on
Exh.22 without relying on sale deeds. When direct sale exemplars
are not available on record, judicial precedents authorize courts to
look at official governmental valuations and expert assessment
reports. The District Valuation Committee consists of official
experts, including the Town Planner, who assess local commercial
potential and real estate growth.
7.1 In the present case, the report at Exh. 22 reflects a thorough
consideration of the geographical proximity of Moje Nanikadi to the
urban center of Kadi town. The reliance placed by the learned
counsel for the respondent on State of Gujarat v. Amaji Mohanji
Thakore (supra) and Lal Chand v. Union of India (supra)
squarely applies to the facts at hand, as the report of a statutorily
constituted Valuation Committee serves as an expert opinion and
an admissible piece of evidence to fix market value in the absence
of registered sale deeds.
7.2 The decisions relied upon by the Learned Advocate for the
appellants do not assist the appellants, as no contrary material or
base exemplars were produced by the acquiring authority to
dislodge the valuation arrived at in Exh. 22. In the absence of
counter-material from the acquiring authority, the learned
Reference Court was fully justified in accepting Exh. 22 as a
Page 7 of 9
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:17:11 IST 2026

C/FA/172/2016 (GJHC240418042016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
reliable foundation.
7.3 On the Deductions and Valuation Methodology, the District
Valuation Committee assessed the market value of non-agricultural
land in the locality at Rs.600.00 per square meter as of 22/11/2006.
Recognizing that the acquired land was agricultural, the learned
Reference Court applied a 30% deduction to convert non-
agricultural value to agricultural value, and an additional 30%
deduction toward location/developmental parameters relative to
Kadi town. By applying a cumulative deduction of 60%, the
Reference Court arrived at Rs.240.00 per square meter as of
22/11/2006. This 60% reduction is substantial and sufficiently
protects against any risk of overestimation.
7.4 On the Annual Escalation is between the baseline date of the
valuation report (22/11/2006) and the date of the Section 4
notification (28/04/2009), there is a gap of 2 years and 5 months.
The grant of an annual 10% price rise is well supported by the
precedent laid down by this Court in Special Land Acquisition
Officer v. Nurjahan Amirali Sayyad [G.H.J. (2010) 25, p. 479 ].
Adding Rs.58.00 per square meter (10% per annum for 2 years 5
months) to the base price of Rs.240.00 yields Rs.298.00 per square
meter.
7.5 On the Interregnum Development and Old Base Rates the
argument of the appellant that the compensation should be capped
at around Rs.200.00 per square meter based on an older Supreme
Court judgment (which affirmed a rate of Rs.124.00 per square
meter from a decade prior) cannot be accepted. During the
interregnum period between the earlier acquisition and the present
proceedings, vast infrastructure and commercial expansion took
Page 8 of 9
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:17:11 IST 2026

C/FA/172/2016 (GJHC240418042016) JUDGMENT DATED: 31/08/2026
place in the vicinity of Kadi town. This rapid urbanization is a
ground reality that cannot be given a go by. The District Valuation
Committee's report reflects these subsequent developments,
making it a far superior baseline than a judicial award as relied
upon by the appellant.
7.5 The reliance placed on Exh. 22 by the Reference Court is
legal, sound, and proper. The total deduction of 60% applied to
convert non-agricultural land values to agricultural rates is
equitable and realistic. The addition of a 10% annual escalation for
the 2 year 5 month gap aligns with settled legal principles. The
final enhancement of Rs.259.00 per square meter (Rs.298.00 total
market value minus Rs.39.00 paid by Special Land Acquisition
Officer is just, fair, and reasonable.
8. In view of the detailed discussion, reasoning, and findings
above, we find no error, illegality, or perversity in the impugned
judgment and award dated 13/02/2014 passed by the learned
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kadi, in (L.A.R.) No. 960 to 962 of
2013.
9. The present First Appeals are devoid of merit and deserve to
be dismissed. The First Appeals are hereby dismissed. Record and
Proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial court forthwith.
(ILESH J. VORA,J)
(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod / sompura
Page 9 of 9
Uploaded by SOMPURA MANISHKUMAR JYOTINDRA(HC00189) on Mon Aug 31 2026 Downloaded on : Tue Sep 01 09:17:11 IST 2026