EXECUTIVE ENGINEER vs LEGAL HEIRS OF BHIL NAGJIJI VANAJI

C/FA/3677/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240227552023)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3677 of 2023
==========================================================
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & ANR.
Versus
LEGAL HEIRS OF BHIL NAGJIJI VANAJI & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAYANK CHAVDA, LD.ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Appellant(s) No. 1,2
DECEASED LITIGANT THROUGH LEGAL HEIRS/ REPRESTENTATIVES for
the Defendant(s) No. 1
MR RAKESH R PATEL(3239) for the Defendant(s) No.
1.1,1.2,1.3,1.4,1.5,1.6,1.7,1.8,1.9
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI

Date : 05/11/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This First Appeal filed under Section 54 of the Land
Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, is directed against the judgment and award
dated 27.08.2021 passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil
Judge, Deesa in Land Reference Case No.143 of 2013.
2. By the impugned award, the learned Reference Court
partly allowed the reference filed by the respondents-claimants
and enhanced the compensation payable for the acquired land
from Rs.29.40 per square meter, as originally determined by
the Special Land Acquisition Officer, to Rs.395.40/- per square
meter (Rs.29.40+Rs.366=Rs.395.40). Aggrieved by this
enhancement, the appellants have approached this Court.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal
are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer initiated
Page 1 of 8
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:41:32 IST 2026

C/FA/3677/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240227552023)
acquisition proceedings for the purpose of construction of Toll
Plaza vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land
Acquisition Act (for short the Act, 1894) dated 09.09.2010. This
was followed by a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act on
29.10.2010.
3.1 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after evaluating the
location, potentiality, and other aspects, passed an award
under Section 11 of the Act on 30.06.2012, fixing the market
value of the land at Rs.29.40/- per square meter. Dissatisfied
with the quantum, the respondents-claimants sought a
reference under Section 18 of the Act. The Reference Court
subsequently enhanced the rate of compensation to
Rs.395.40/- per square meter (Rs.29.40+Rs.366=Rs.395.40 by
the impugned judgment and award dated 27.08.2021.
3.2 Being aggrieved, the appellants are here before this
Court with the present appeal.
4. Learned AGP Mr. Mayank Chavda appearing for the
appellants submits that the award passed by the learned
Reference Court is contrary to law and evidence on record, and
as such, deserves to be quashed and set aside. Learned AGP
Mr. Chavda also submits that the learned Reference Court
ought to have appreciated the fact that the reference
application preferred by the original claimants were time
barred under the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, and
therefore, it ought not to have entertained the reference
application preferred by the claimants.
5. Learned AGP Mr. Chavda further submits that the learned
Page 2 of 8
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:41:32 IST 2026

C/FA/3677/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240227552023)
Reference Court ought to have properly taken into
consideration the oral evidence of the Land Acquisition Officer
who has very categorically narrated the entire aspect of the
matter, which he has considered while fixing the rate of the
land after taking into consideration the overall circumstances.
However, the learned Reference Court has ignored the same
and passed the impugned award, which is on higher side. He
also submits that the learned Reference Court has erroneously
relied upon the oral evidence produced on behalf of the
claimants, which are not supported by any documentary
evidence. Learned AGP Mr. Chavda further submits that at the
time of cross-examination of the witness, he has stated that he
has no evidence to show that he was taking crops three times
in a year and further stated that he is not keeping the accounts
for income and expenses and has no evidence regarding the
potentiality of the land. Even the documents pertaining to the
fertility of the land had also not been produced by the
claimants. He, therefore, submits that the additional
compensation awarded by the learned Reference Court is not
just and proper.
6. Learned AGP Mr. Chavda further submits that the learned
Reference Court has erroneously erred in awarding the
additional compensation without appreciating the fact that
after considering the quality of fertility of the acquired lands as
also the development of the area, the Special Land Acquisition
Officer has passed the award, and therefore, the learned
Reference Court ought not to have interfered with the same.
He also submits that the learned Reference Court has erred in
discarding the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer
Page 3 of 8
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:41:32 IST 2026

C/FA/3677/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240227552023)
without assigning any cogent and convincing reason although
the Special Land Acquisition Officer has taken into
consideration the market price prevailing at the time of
issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act and the
revenue records which are required to be considered for
determination of the market value of the acquired land. He
further submits that the claimants demanded higher amount,
but could not produce any documentary evidence in support of
their demand and has also not produced any document to
determine the price of the land. He further submits that the
learned Reference Court has erred in not considering the fact
that the Special Land Acquisition Officer has passed the award
after taking into consideration the five years’ sale instances of
the nearby areas while determining the market value of the
acquired land and when comparable sale instances of same
vicinity are available on record, price of those comparable
instances need to be taken into consideration. Learned AGP
Mr. Chavda further submits that while passing the impugned
award of enhancing the compensation, the learned Reference
Court has heavily put reliance upon the report prepared by the
District Valuation Committee. He submits that, in fact, the said
report was with regard to village Deesa and the distance
between Village: Deesa and Zerda is about 10 kilometers, and
as such, the learned Reference Court has erred in applying the
criteria fixed by the Valuation Committee for Village Deesa to
the facts of the case pertaining to Village; Zerda. Under these
circumstances, learned AGP Mr. Chavda prays that the present
appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be
quashed and set aside.
Page 4 of 8
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:41:32 IST 2026

C/FA/3677/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240227552023)
7. The defendants remained unrepresented when the
matter was taken up for hearing.
8. Heard the learned AGP appearing for the appellants and
perused the record.
9. This Court has carefully examined the evidence on
record, the impugned award passed by the learned Reference
Court, and the grounds of appeal urged by the appellants-
State. The core grievance of the State is that the market value
determined by the Reference Court is excessive. However, it is
an undisputed fact that the Reference Court arrived at this
valuation by placing strong reliance upon the official
assessment report formulated and certified by the District Land
Valuation Committee
10. The legal character of such a committee cannot be
undermined by the State for its own convenience. As
established by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Chand v. Union of
India, (2009) 15 SCC 769 and consistently followed by the
various High Courts, the estimation of market value by a
statutorily constituted expert administrative committee forms
an authentic piece of expert evidence. The Valuation
Committee is not a casual assembly; it is an expert body in the
field of valuation, comprising high-ranking administrative and
revenue officers, including the District Collector and Town
Planning Officers.
11. When a body consisting of the State’s own senior
revenue experts, possessing direct local knowledge of land
rates, infrastructure growth, and developmental potential, fixes
Page 5 of 8
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:41:32 IST 2026

C/FA/3677/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240227552023)
a benchmark price for land allotment or acquisition in an area,
a strong presumption of correctness attaches to it. In the
absence of any robust, overriding evidence produced by the
State to dislodge this presumption, the price fixed by its own
expert committee must be treated as the most reliable
indicator of prevailing market value.
12. The State cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold
simultaneously. It is an untenable proposition for the State to
assert on one hand that its District Land Valuation Committee
is competent to fix rates for public infrastructure projects, and
on the other hand, contend before a court of law that the very
same committee's report is exaggerated, erroneous, or inflated
when it comes to paying compensation to citizens. Once the
Reference Court has applied its judicial mind, evaluated the
parameters of the DLVC report, and accepted it as baseline
evidence, the State is effectively estopped from challenging
the validity of its own institutional data.
13. It is a trite law that an appellate court will not lightly
interfere with or disturb the findings of a Reference Court on
land valuation unless the award is shown to be perverse,
plagued by patent illegality, or entirely divorced from the
material on record. In the present case, the appellants-State
has utterly failed to demonstrate any legal infirmity,
calculation error, or misapplication of law in the impugned
judgment. The Reference Court’s reliance on the DLVC report is
logical, evidence-backed, and legally sustainable. Slicing or
reducing fair compensation based on mere administrative
conjecture is legally impermissible.
Page 6 of 8
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:41:32 IST 2026

C/FA/3677/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240227552023)
14. This Court has also given its anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned AGP, Mr. Chavda, asserting
that the learned Reference Court erred in adopting the District
Land Valuation Committee (DLVC) report for Village Deesa to
determine the market value of the acquired lands situated at
Village Zerda, owing to a geographical distance of
approximately 10 kilometers between the two locations.
However, This Court finds this argument to be fundamentally
flawed and unsustainable under well-established land
acquisition jurisprudence.
15. It is a settled proposition of law, consistently upheld by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thakarsibhai Devjibhai & Ors. v.
Executive Engineer, Gujarat & Anr. (2001) 9 SCC 22, that
distance between two pieces of land by itself cannot be the
sole criteria to differentiate their market value. When the lands
are similarly situated, share equivalent fertility, and possess
identical agricultural or commercial potentiality, mere
geographical separation does not automatically lead to a
reduction in market value. The appellant-State has failed to
adduce any cogent or overriding evidence before the
Reference Court to demonstrate that the developmental
potential, soil quality, or infrastructure of Village Zerda was in
any way inferior to that of the adjacent or neighboring cluster
of Village Deesa
16. Furthermore, as established by the Division Bench of this
Court in State of Gujarat vs. Amaji Mohanji Thakore 2010 (3)
GLH 447, the District Land Valuation Committee is a statutorily
recognized expert administrative body composed of highly
Page 7 of 8
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:41:32 IST 2026

C/FA/3677/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240227552023)
qualified revenue and administrative officers, including the
District Collector. The valuation finalized by such a specialized
panel reflects comprehensive local market intelligence. Once
the learned Reference Court evaluated the local variables and
applied its judicial mind to adopt this official report as a robust
evidentiary baseline, the State cannot characteristically
seeking to disown its own committee's findings by drawing
arbitrary circles on a map.
17. The Reference Court has correctly appreciated the
evidence on record and factored in the holistic potentiality of
the region. Slicing or rejecting an award simply because the
baseline data originates from a recognized regional hub within
a 10-kilometer radius is legally impermissible. Consequently,
the contention of the learned AGP regarding the distance factor
fails to inspire confidence, lacks substantive legal merit, and is
hereby rejected.
18. Consequently, This Court does not find any merit in the
challenge raised by the appellant-State. The findings recorded
by the learned Reference Court are confirmed. The appeal
preferred by the State is hereby dismissed, with no order as to
costs. All connected civil applications stand disposed of
accordingly.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
Page 8 of 8
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Fri Nov 06 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 06 16:41:32 IST 2026