STATE OF GUJARAT vs ADESINH RAYSINH RATHOD
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240605982026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4428 of 2026
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2026
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 4428 of 2026
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
================================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
================================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
Versus
ADESINH RAYSINH RATHOD
================================================================
Appearance:
MS. DHARITRI PANCHILI, AGP, for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3
VIDIT S SHARMA(7365) for the Defendant(s) No. 1
===============================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
Date : 19/10/2026
JUDGMENT
1. The captioned appeal is filed against the judgment and
award dated 27.09.2018 passed by learned Principal Senior Civil
Judge, Kalol at Godhra in L.A.R. No.208 of 2017 (Old L.A.R.
No.342 of 2013), whereby the learned Reference Court has
enhanced additional compensation at Rs.438/- per sq.mtr.
2. It emerges from the record that the land of the respondent
came to be acquired by the appellant by issuing Notification
under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Act’) on 06.05.2010. Thereafter, notification under
Section 6 of the Act was published in the Government Gazette on
Page 1 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 17:41:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240605982026)
31.03.2011. The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded the
compensation at the rate of Rs.18.15/- per sq.mtr for the
acquired land. Being dissatisfied with the award of the Special
Land Acquisition Officer, the respondent herein-original claimant
preferred Reference under Section 18 of the Act for seeking
enhancement of the compensation. The learned Reference Court
vide impugned judgment and award, awarded additional
compensation at the rate of Rs.438/- per sq.mtr for the acquired
land alongwith other statutory benefits.
3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and award, the appellant-State has preferred the
captioned appeal.
4. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf
of the appellant-State submitted that the learned Reference
Court has awarded the compensation at higher rate. She
submitted that the learned Reference Court has placed reliance
upon LAR Nos.77 of 2017 to 80 of 2017, 82 of 2017 to 89 of 2017
and 93 of 2017 of the adjoining land to the land in question. She
further submitted that the land in the aforesaid LARs and land in
question is not having similar potentiality and therefore, she
submitted that the learned Reference Court has wrongly relied
upon the judgment dated 21.06.2018 passed in the aforesaid LAR
Nos.77 of 2017 to 80 of 2017, 82 of 2017 to 89 of 2017 and 93 of
2017, produced at Exh.17. Therefore, she prayed for reduction of
compensation.
Page 2 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 17:41:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240605982026)
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Vidit Sharma appearing on
behalf of the respondent-claimant vehemently submitted that
the State Government has accepted the award in the other
matters being LAR Nos.212 of 2017 to 214 of 2017, arising out of
the very same notification and the land is also situated at the
same village. He further submitted that the State Government
cannot adopt the policy of pick and choose. In support of his
contention, learned counsel for the respondent has placed
reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon ’ ble Apex Court
in case of Ali Mohammad Beigh and others v/s. State of Jammu
and Kashmir, reported in, (2017) 4 SCC 717 and in case of
Surinder Ahuja and another v/s. State of Punjab and another,
reported in, 2026 INSC 1068 .
7. Having placed the reliance upon the aforesaid judgments,
learned counsel for the respondent-original claimant submitted
that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Dixa Pandya could
not controvert the said position that the State Government has
accepted the award in some of the matters arising out of the
same notification, but she submitted that the State Government
has accepted the award, where the awarded amount was below
Rs.5 Lacs and therefore, State Government has chosen not to
prefer any appeal.
9. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for
the parties and having gone through the record, it is not in
dispute that the State Government in some of the matters arising
Page 3 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 17:41:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240605982026)
out of the very same notification and where the land is also
situated in the very same village, the State Government has
accepted the award and has not challenged the award. Here the
State Government has challenged the award only on the ground
that the awarded amount is more than Rs.5 Lacs because the land
area of the clamant is more. In case of Surinder Ahuja (supra) ,
the Apex Court in para -5.2.3 observed as under:-
“5.2.3 In Ali Mohammad Beigh and Others v. State of Jammu &
Kashmir, the Supreme Court established the doctrine of parity in
project-wide acquisitions, when the lands are more or less situated
nearby and when the acquired lands are identical and similar and
the acquisition is for the same purpose, it would be improper to
discriminate between the landowners unless there are strong
reasons, which are missing herein. Moreover, the High Court
disregarded the deposition of the State's own witness, SDO
Irrigation (RW-1), who conceded that the urban abadi of Fazilka
town was actively expanding directly toward the acquired land of
Karni Khera. In Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh and Others,
this Court reinforced this contiguity principle:
"15. We have carefully considered the submissions made on
behalf of the respective parties and we see no justification to
interfere with the decision of the Division Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court which, in our view, took a
pragmatic approach in fixing the market value of the lands
forming the subject-matter of the acquisition proceedings at
a uniform rate. From the sketch plan of the area in question,
it appears to us that while the lands in question are situated
in five different villages, they can be consolidated into one
single unit with little to choose between one stretch of land
and another. The entire area is in a stage of development and
the different villages are capable of being developed in the
same manner as the lands comprised in Kala Ghanu Pur
where the market value of the acquired lands was fixed at a
uniform rate of Rs 40,000 per acre. The Division Bench of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court discarded the belting method
of valuation having regard to the local circumstances and
Page 4 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 17:41:39 IST 2026
C/FA/4428/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 19/10/2026
(GJHC240605982026)
features and no cogent ground has been made out to
interfere with the same.
16. In our view, in the absence of any contemporaneous
document, the market value of the acquired lands of Village
Kala Ghanu Pur which were acquired at the same time as the
lands in the other five villages was correctly taken to be a
comparative unit for determination of the market value of
the lands comprising the lands forming the subject-matter of
the acquisition proceedings under consideration......."
10. Thus, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court, the State cannot adopt the policy of pick and choose on
the ground of the smallness and largeness of the acquired land.
Thus, captioned appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is
hereby dismissed .
11. In view of the order passed in the main matter, the Civil
Application would not survive and hence, disposed of
accordingly.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
SIDDHARTH
Page 5 of 5
Uploaded by SIDDHARTH(HC01065) on Wed Oct 21 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 21 17:41:39 IST 2026