GENERAL MANAGER vs THAKAR NAVNITBHAI DALPATRAM
- Court
- Gujarat High Court
C/FA/3972/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240403942012)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3972 of 2012
==========================================================
GENERAL MANAGER
Versus
THAKAR NAVNITBHAI DALPATRAM & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJAY R MEHTA(453) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR. SHAILESH DESAI, LD. ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Defendant(s) No. 2
RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 1
==========================================================
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
th
dated 01.10.2012 passed by the learned 4 Additional Senior
Civil Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition Reference (L.A.R.)
Case No.839 of 2009.
2. By the impugned award, the learned Reference Court
partly allowed the reference filed by the Respondent No.1-
claimant and enhanced the compensation payable for the
acquired land from Rs.14/- per square meter, as originally
determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, to Rs. 105/-
per square meter (Rs.14.00+Rs.91=Rs.105.00). Aggrieved by
this more than four-fold enhancement, the appellant-Oil and
Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC), the acquiring body,
has approached this Court.
3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal
are that the Special Land Acquisition Officer, ONGC Ltd.
Page 1 of 10
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 16:40:47 IST 2026
C/FA/3972/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240403942012)
initiated acquisition proceedings for the purpose of drilling
vide Notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition
Act (for short the Act, 1894) dated 19.10.2004. This was
followed by a Declaration under Section 6 of the Act on
18.10.2005.
3.1 The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after evaluating the
location, potentiality, and contemporary sale deeds, passed an
award under Section 11 of the Act on 22.02.2007, fixing the
market value of the land at Rs.14/- per square meter.
Dissatisfied with the quantum, the respondent No. 1 sought a
reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894 claiming
compensation at the rate of Rs.200/-. The Reference Court
subsequently enhanced the rate of compensation to Rs.105/-
per square meter (Rs.14.00+ Rs.91=Rs.105).
3.2 Being aggrieved, the appellant-ONGC is here before this
Court with the present appeal.
4. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the core question of market value
determination for the land in question is no longer res integra.
He has placed reliance on the judgment and order passed by
this Court in First Appeal No.3533 of 2012, decided on
29.10.2026, wherein in an identical situation, the award passed
by the Reference Court has been modified for the reasons
recorded therein. The learned advocate submitted that he does
not have any grievance so far as the quantum of compensation
granted by the Reference Court is concerned.
5. However, so far as the secondary aspect of the matter
with regard to interest part is concerned, the learned counsel
strongly assailed the direction of the Reference Court
Page 2 of 10
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 16:40:47 IST 2026
C/FA/3972/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240403942012)
concerning the payment of statutory interest. He submitted
that by the impugned award, the Reference Court directed the
appellant to pay interest on the enhanced amount of
compensation at the rate of 9% per annum for the first year
from the date of taking possession or issuing the notification
under Section 4 (whichever is earlier), and thereafter at the
rate of 15% per annum until the realization of the amount, as
per Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The learned
counsel vehemently argued that the strict application of this
escalating interest rate inflicts an unconscionable and
inequitable financial penalty on the public exchequer due to no
fault on their part. It is submitted that it is an admitted position
of fact that the Reference Court took a considerable long time
to decide a standard land reference. The learned counsel
contended that the appellant cannot be penalized with an
astronomical cumulative interest liability at 15% per annum for
the period during which the matter remained completely
dormant before the court through no fault of the acquiring
body. The counsel prayed that the interest component be
structurally scaled down or optimized to reflect the true
statutory intent, minimizing the unjust enrichment arising out
of administrative and judicial inertia.
6. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed
and the impugned award be modified so far as the interest part
is concerned.
7. The respondent No.1, although served with the rule
issued by this Court, has chosen not to appear before this
Court either in person or through an advocate and contest the
present appeal.
Page 3 of 10
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 16:40:47 IST 2026
C/FA/3972/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240403942012)
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the record.
9. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the
grievance raised by the appellant-ONGC regarding the
quantum of compensation fails, as the learned counsel has
raised no major dispute on that count. Consequently, the
award passed by the Reference Court, so far as the amount of
compensation is concerned, stands confirmed and requires no
interference.
10. However, so far as the issue of interest is concerned, this
Court is guided by the principles laid down by this Court in First
Appeal No.3533 of 2012, which modified the interest
component of the award passed by the learned Reference
Court. I may quote with profit the relevant observations made
therein:-
“8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties
and perused the record.
9. This Court has carefully examined the judgment and
order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in
First Appeal No. 18 of 2010. It is an admitted position on
record that the land in the present appeal is situated in
the exact same village and was acquired for the very
same public purpose within a brief span of three months
from the acquisition proceedings involved in the
companion matter.
10. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the
grievance raised by the appellant-ONGC regarding the
quantum of compensation fails, as the learned counsel
has raised no major dispute on that count. Consequently,
the award passed by the Reference Court, so far as the
amount of compensation is concerned, stands confirmed
and requires no interference.
Page 4 of 10
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 16:40:47 IST 2026
C/FA/3972/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240403942012)
11. However, so far as the issue of interest is
concerned, this Court is guided by the principles laid
down by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in First Appeal
No.18 of 2010, which modified the interest component of
the award passed by the learned Reference Court. I may
quote with profit the relevant observations made
therein:-
“6. I have considered the submissions canvassed by
the learned advocates for the parties and also
perused the records and proceedings. The part of
being Survey No.187/5 of village Nani Kadi was
acquired by ONGC for the purpose of project of well
No.V.J.E.C for which Section 4 notification under the
Act was published on 26.4.1999. Declaration under
Section 6 of the Act was published on 17.10.1999.
The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation
at the rate of 24/- paisa per square meter. The said
award was assailed by the original claimants by
preferring land reference case under Section 18 of
the Act wherein the learned Reference Court after
considering the evidence, determined
compensation at Rs.124 per square meter. The said
decision was assailed before this Court by First
Appeal No.5241 of 2008, wherein total
compensation was fixed at Rs.75/- per square
meter.
6.1. The said decision was assailed before the
Hon’ble Apex Court being Civil Appeal No(s) 5541 of
2017 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.23413 /2016)], wherein Apex Court vide order
dated 24.4.2017 upheld the order of learned
reference Court, who had assessed the market
value of the land at the rate of Rs.124 per square
meter after considering the increase of price rise at
the rate of Rs.10% per year on cumulative basis.
Paras 3, 4 and 5 are as under:-
“3.Having considered the matter we are of the
view that in the facts of the present case the
High Court was not justified in refusing the
benefit of cumulative increase to the appellant
Page 5 of 10
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 16:40:47 IST 2026
C/FA/3972/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240403942012)
landowners.
4. The learned Reference Court while awarding
compensation to the appellants relied on the
notification of 1984 (i.e. dated 23rd
September, 1984) in respect of the same
village wherein the landowners were granted
compensation at the rate of Rs. 30/- per
square meter and the same rate (i.e. Rs.30/-
per square meter) has been taken as the base
for awarding compensation to the appellants
by granting the benefit of increase of price
rise at the rate of 10% per year on cumulative
basis. The compensation awarded by the
learned Reference Court i.e. Rs.124/- per
square meter has been worked out on the
aforesaid.
5. We do not find any error in the exercise by
the learned Reference Court Interference of
the High Court therefore, was not justified.
We, accordingly, interfere with the order of the
High Court and set aside the same including
the directions for refund of the alleged excess
amount by the appellants - landowners and
restore the compensation awarded by the
learned Reference Court.”
In the present case remaining part of claimant’s
land bearing Survey No.187/5 of same village has
been acquired for same purpose of project of well
No.VJEC. When the remaining land of same claimant
is acquired for the same purpose, there can not be
separate criteria for awarding compensation.
Moreover, the difference in publication of both
Notifications under Section 4 of the Act is only one
year.
6.2. In the present case, reliance has been placed
by the learned advocate for the respondent on a
decision dated 6.8.2015 in First Appeal No.3531 of
2011 in the case of General Manager – Oil & Natural
Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Senma Mohanbhai Dalabhai
& Others. In the aforesaid decision, the Section 4
Page 6 of 10
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 16:40:47 IST 2026
C/FA/3972/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240403942012)
notification was dated 31.12.1998, whereas in the
case of Group General Manager (supra), the Section
4 notification was published on 26.4.1999. In the
present case, Section 4 notification is dated
18.3.2000. The decision of First Appeal No.3531 of
2000 is pertaining to village Merda which is far
away from the village Nani Kadi. The decision in the
First Appeal No.5241 of 2008 pertains to village
Nani Kadi, the evidence which has been considered
in the aforesaid decision and the market value
which has been determined by the reference Court
can be applied in the present case for the reason
that the date of notification under Section 4 in both
the cases is only 26.4.1999 and 18.3.2000
respectively and the difference is only 10 months
and 21 days. In my view, the parameters which
have been relied upon by the learned reference
Court in determining the market value at Rs.124
per square meter in the Land Acquisition Reference
Case No.5360 of 2003, can be considered in
determining the market value of the land in the
present proceedings.
6.3. The learned Reference Court has not properly
appreciated the parameters which are required to
be considered for determining the market value of
the land in question. In my view, the total
compensation should be determined at the rate of
Rs.124/- per square meter and the claimants are
entitled to Rs.124 per square meter as total amount
of compensation for the acquisition of their land.
6.4. The next question which requires consideration
as to from which date interest can be calculated.
The award under Section 11 is passed on 23.5.2002
by the special Land Acquisition Officer. Relying upon
the provisions contained under Section 16 of the Act
which contemplates taking possession of the land
by the Collector upon making an award under
Section 11 of the land in question. Section 28 of the
Act also contemplates interest on excess
compensation. Section 28 of the Act provides that
interest shall be paid on excess amount of
Page 7 of 10
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 16:40:47 IST 2026
C/FA/3972/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240403942012)
compensation from the date on which the Collector
took possession of the land. Both the provisions are
clear and needs no interpretation. When the law
contemplates interest to be calculated from the
date of taking possession and the Collector can take
possession upon passing of award under Section 11,
In my view, the date of possession can be construed
as 23.5.2002 which is the date of award passed
under Section 11 of the Act. Thus, claimants are
entitled to interest on additional compensation from
23.5.2002.
7. Resultantly, this First Appeal is party allowed. The
judgment and order passed by 3rd Additional
District Judge, Mehsana in Land Acquisition
Reference Case No.95 of 2002 is here by modified
and the original claimants are entitled to Rs.124 per
square meter as total compensation.
7.1. The claimants are entitled to interest from
23.5.2002 on the enhanced amount of
compensation at the rate of 9% per annum for the
first year and thereafter at the rate of 15% till
realization. No order as to costs.”
12. On the touchstone of the statutory provisions and
the binding precedent, this Court turns to the interest
component. In view of the principles squarely laid down
by this High Court in First Appeal No. 18 of 2010 (which
modified the award passed by the learned Reference
Court), the interest framework is well-settled.
Consequently, it is held that the respondent No.1-
claimant in the present case is also entitled to interest on
the additional amount of compensation at the rate of 9%
per annum for the first year, commencing from the date
of the passing of the award, i.e., 24.01.2012 and
thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum until the date of
actual realization.
13. Resultantly, the present appeal filed by the ONGC is
partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the
Reference Court is modified only to the limited extent of
the interest component as specified above, while the rest
Page 8 of 10
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 16:40:47 IST 2026
C/FA/3972/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240403942012)
of the award stands affirmed. Parties are left to bear their
own costs. Let the decree be drawn up accordingly.
14. The appellant-ONGC is directed to calculate the
modified balance amount along with the accrued interest
from the date of the award and deposit the same before
the Reference Court within a period of twelve 12 weeks
from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. Upon such deposit, the Reference Court shall
disburse the amount to the respondent No.1-claimant
after proper verification and in accordance with the law.
Civil Application, if any pending, also stands disposed of
in view of the final disposal of the main appeal.
16. The present appeal stands partly allowed in the
above terms. “
11. On the touchstone of the statutory provisions and the
binding precedent, this Court turns to the interest component.
In view of the principles squarely laid down by this Court in
First Appeal No.3533 of 2012 (which modified the award
passed by the learned Reference Court), the interest
framework is well-settled. Consequently, it is held that the
respondent No.1-claimant in the present case is also entitled to
interest on the additional amount of compensation at the rate
of 9% per annum for the first year, commencing from the date
of the passing of the award, i.e., 01.10.2012 and thereafter at
the rate of 15% per annum until the date of actual realization.
12. Resultantly, the present appeal filed by the ONGC is
partly allowed. The impugned award passed by the Reference
Court is modified only to the limited extent of the interest
component as specified above, while the rest of the award
stands affirmed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Let the
decree be drawn up accordingly.
Page 9 of 10
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 16:40:47 IST 2026
C/FA/3972/2012 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/11/2026
(GJHC240403942012)
13. The appellant-ONGC is directed to calculate the modified
balance amount along with the accrued interest from the date
of the award and deposit the same before the Reference Court
within a period of twelve 12 weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
14. Upon such deposit, the Reference Court shall disburse the
amount to the respondent No.1-claimant after proper
verification and in accordance with the law. Civil Application, if
any pending, also stands disposed of in view of the final
disposal of the main appeal.
15. The present appeal stands partly allowed in the above
terms.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
Page 10 of 10
Uploaded by ABDULVAHID A SHAIKH(HC00955) on Sat Nov 07 2026 Downloaded on : Sat Nov 07 16:40:47 IST 2026