STATE OF GUJARAT vs JIVATIBEN CHHAGANBHAI
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/304/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632712019)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 304 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 304 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 144 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 145 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 145 of 2022
With
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2091 of 2025
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2019
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2091 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JIVATIBEN CHHAGANBHAI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS DIXA PANDYA, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KM SHETH(838) for the Defendant(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
Date : 02/11/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 14:01:14 IST 2026
C/FA/304/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632712019)
1. By way of preferring present group of appeals
under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894,
read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 by the appellant - State, the challenge is made
th
to the common judgment and award dated 28
rd
September, 2018 passed by the learned 3 Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Jamnagar in Land Reference Case
Nos. 115 to 119 of 2004, 5 of 2025 and 125 of 2003.
2. Since all the aforesaid reference cases were
disposed of by the said common judgment and award,
all these appeals were heard together and disposed of
by this common judgment.
3. The facts giving rise to the present batch of
appeals preferred by the State may be briefly
summarized as follows:
3.1. The proposal for acquiring various parcels of
land situated at village Jiragadh, Taluka Jodiya,
District Jamnagar was declared by issuing
Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 for the public purpose i.e. for the
construction of Aji-4 Irrigation projects. The said
notification was published in the Government Gazette
th
on 28 August, 1999 followed by the Notification
under Section 6 of the Act, which was published on
th
13 April, 2000. The affected persons, mainly, the
land owners were issued notices and after extending
the opportunity of hearing, the competent authority –
Special Land Acquisition Officer had passed an award
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 14:01:14 IST 2026
C/FA/304/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632712019)
rd
under Section 11 of the Act on 3 September, 2002,
whereby, the amount awarded as compensation for the
acquired land was fixed at the rate of Rs.4.25 paisa
per sq. mtr. for Bagayat (irrigated) as well as
Jirayat (non-irrigated) lands.
3.2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
determination of the aforesaid amount awarded by the
Special Land Acquisition Officer concerned, the
respective land owners have raised reference before
the Collector, under Section 18 of the Act seeking
enhancement of compensation. The aforesaid land
reference applications were registered as Land
Reference Case Nos. 115 to 119 of 2004, 5 of 2005 and
rd
125 of 2003, before the learned 3 Additional Senior
Civil Judge at Jamnagar.
3.3. The learned Reference Court upon appreciation of
the oral, as well as, documentary evidence brought on
record by the original claimants, as well as, taking
into consideration the documentary evidence brought
on record by the respondent authorities, partly
allowed the reference by common judgment thereby
awarding Rs.41.60 per sq. mtr. in case of Jirayat
(non-irrigated) land and Rs.62.40 per sq. mtr. in
case of Bagayat (irrigated) land followed by the
consequential benefits envisaged under Section 23(1)
(A) and 23(2) of the Act. The Reference Court had
also awarded proportionate costs to be realized from
the respondent. Hence, these appeals.
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 14:01:14 IST 2026
C/FA/304/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632712019)
4. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.
Dixa Pandya for the appellant – State and learned
advocate Mr. K. M. Sheth for the respondents –
original claimants.
5. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Sheth,
appearing on behalf of the original claimants,
submitted that the issue involved in the present
batch of appeals is no longer res integra, as the
same has already been adjudicated upon by the
Division Bench as well as the Coordinate Bench of
this Court. It was further submitted that the
Division Bench of this Court, vide common CAV
judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed in First Appeal No.
121 of 2019 and allied matters, had dismissed the
appeals preferred by the State in respect of lands
acquired for the very same project, namely, the Aji-4
Irrigation Scheme, situated at village Meghpar, which
is approximately 30 kilometres away from the village
in the present case. Being aggrieved by the said
judgment, the State had preferred a Special Leave
Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However,
the said Special Leave Petition came to be dismissed
both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.
6. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth would contend that
relying upon the aforesaid decision, the Division
Bench passed common oral judgment dated 26.07.2024 in
First Appeal No.4213 of 2021 and allied matter
dismissing the appeals filed at the instance of the
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 14:01:14 IST 2026
C/FA/304/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632712019)
appellant – State. The said batch of appeals pertains
to the acquisition of land of same village Jiragadh
for the very same project. In the aforesaid case, the
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act were
published on 26.04.2001 and 11.05.2002 (Sic.
18.05.2002), respectively, whereas, in the instant
case, they were published on 28.08.1999 and
13.04.2000, respectively. In the aforesaid matter
before the Division Bench, the learned Reference
Court had enhanced the amount of compensation from
Rs.4.70 paisa per sq. mtr. (awarded by the Special
Land Acquisition Officer) to Rs.50.30 paisa per sq.
mtr. for Jirayat land and Rs.75.40 paisa per sq. mtr.
for Bagayat land, whereas, in the instant case the
learned Reference Court had enhanced the amount of
compensation from Rs.4.25 paisa per sq. mtr. for both
irrigated as well as non-irrigated land to Rs.41.60
paisa per sq. mtr. for Jirayat land and Rs.62.40
paisa per sq. mtr. for Bagayat land.
7. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth further contended
that even the Coordinate Bench of this Court had
dismissed another batch of First Appeals, being First
Appeal No. 132 of 2022 and allied matters, preferred
by the State challenging the judgment and award
passed by the learned Reference Court in respect of
the acquisition of lands situated at the very same
village for the very same project, vide common
judgment dated 23.10.2024. Thus, there is no merit in
the instant first appeals preferred by the appellant
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 14:01:14 IST 2026
C/FA/304/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632712019)
– State and therefore they are required to be
dismissed.
8. Learned AGP for the appellant – State was unable
to dispute the aforesaid fact. However, she placed
reliance upon the grounds raised in the present
appeals to contend that the learned Reference Court
has in absence of any material to substantiate the
case of the original claimants of similar in every
aspect of location, fertility and future
adaptability, has straight way accepted the claim by
relying upon the determination of market value
determined in earlier Land Acquisition Reference
Cases. However, she has fairly conceded that the SLP
preferred by the State assailing the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court has been dismissed by
the Hon’ble Apex Court both on delay as well as on
merits. Moreover, learned AGP has not been able to
distinguish the facts of the case and has urged to
pass appropriate order.
9. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and having perused the material
available on record, it emerges that the controversy
involved in the present batch of appeals is
substantially covered by the decisions rendered by
the Division Bench as well as the Coordinate Bench of
this Court in respect of the acquisition of lands for
the very same project, namely, the Aji-4 Irrigation
Scheme. It is not in dispute that the lands forming
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 14:01:14 IST 2026
C/FA/304/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632712019)
the subject matter of the aforesaid decisions were
situated at village Meghpar and village Jiragadh and
were acquired for the very same project. The Division
Bench, after examining the relevant aspects, had
dismissed the appeals preferred by the State
challenging the enhancement of compensation granted
by the learned Reference Court. It is also an
admitted position of fact that the challenge to the
judgment dated 20.07.2023 passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in First Appeal No.121 of 2019
and allied matters, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
by way of Special Leave Petition, did not yield any
favourable result to the State, as the same came to
be dismissed both on the ground of delay as well as
on merits.
10. It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench,
thereafter, vide common oral judgment dated
26.07.2024 passed in First Appeal No. 4213 of 2021
and allied matters, arising out of the acquisition of
lands situated at village Jiragadh for the very same
project, had once again dismissed the appeals
preferred by the State. Similarly, the Coordinate
Bench of this Court, vide common judgment dated
23.10.2024 passed in First Appeal No. 132 of 2022 and
allied matters, had also dismissed the appeals
preferred by the State in respect of the acquisition
of lands situated at the very same village for the
very same project. Thus, the issue regarding
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 14:01:14 IST 2026
C/FA/304/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632712019)
determination of market value of lands acquired for
the very same project has already received
consideration at the hands of this Court on more than
one occasion.
11. No doubt, as rightly pointed out, the
notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act in
the present case were published on 28.08.1999 and
13.04.2000, respectively, whereas, in the matters
pertaining to same village Jiragadh which is the
subject matter before the Division Bench of this
Court, the notifications were published on 26.04.2001
and 18.05.2002, respectively. However, the mere
difference in the dates of publication of the
notifications would not, by itself, be sufficient to
discard the aforesaid decisions, particularly when
the acquisitions pertain to the very same project and
the State has not been able to demonstrate any
distinguishing feature with regard to the nature,
location, fertility or other relevant attributes of
the acquired lands so as to warrant a different
determination. On the contrary, the compensation
awarded by the learned Reference Court in the present
case is lower than the compensation determined in the
matters before the Division Bench and the Coordinate
Bench.
12. It is also required to be noted that the
principal contention raised by the State is that the
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 14:01:14 IST 2026
C/FA/304/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632712019)
learned Reference Court ought not to have relied upon
the determination of market value in the earlier Land
Acquisition Reference Cases in the absence of
independent evidence establishing similarity between
the acquired lands. However, the said contention, in
the facts of the present case, cannot be considered
in isolation. The determination of market value in
respect of lands acquired for the very same project
has already been examined by the Division Bench as
well as the Coordinate Bench of this Court. The State
has not been able to point out any material
distinction or any subsequent development which would
persuade this Court to take a view different from the
one consistently adopted in the aforesaid decisions.
Moreover, the learned AGP has fairly conceded that
the facts of the present case could not be
distinguished from those involved in the aforesaid
matters.
13. At this stage, it would also be relevant to
observe that judicial discipline and consistency
require this Court to follow the view already taken
by the Division Bench in matters involving
substantially similar facts and circumstances, unless
there are cogent reasons or distinguishing
circumstances warranting a different conclusion. In
the present case, no such distinguishing circumstance
has been brought to the notice of this Court. The
subsequent dismissal of the appeals by the Division
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 14:01:14 IST 2026
C/FA/304/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/11/2026
(GJHC240632712019)
Bench and the Coordinate Bench, pertaining to the
acquisition of lands for the very same project,
further fortifies the submissions advanced on behalf
of the learned advocate for the original claimants.
14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,
and more particularly, considering the decisions
rendered by the Division Bench as well as the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in respect of lands
acquired for the very same project, coupled with the
inability of the appellant - State to point out any
distinguishing feature warranting interference, this
Court finds no reason to take a different view.
15. The appellant–State has failed to make out any
ground warranting interference with the judgment and
award passed by the learned Reference Court.
Consequently, the present batch of appeals stands
dismissed. Rule discharged. The learned Reference
Court is directed to disburse the remaining amount of
compensation to the original claimants, upon proper
verification and identification.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by LAVKUMAR J JANI(HC00210) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 14:01:14 IST 2026