Jiragadh Landowners’ Higher Aji-4 Compensation Stands: Gujarat HC Upholds Rs 41.60/Sq. Metre for Non-Irrigated, Rs 62.40 for Irrigated Land

The State appealed under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against a common award concerning land acquired at village Jiragadh for the Aji-4 Irrigation Project.

The Section 4 notification was published on 28 August 1999 and the Section 6 notification on 13 April 2000; the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 4.25 per sq. m. for both irrigated and non-irrigated land.

On the landowners’ references under Section 18, the Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 41.60 per sq. m. for Jirayat land and Rs. 62.40 per sq. m. for Bagayat land, with statutory benefits and proportionate costs.

The State challenged that enhancement.

The landowners relied on earlier High Court decisions concerning acquisitions for the same project, including acquisitions at Jiragadh; the State did not distinguish those decisions on the facts.

Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, provides for appeals from awards in land-acquisition references, and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, governs first appeals; the landowners’ compensation references arose under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

In determining whether to interfere with the market valuation, the Court applied the principle of judicial discipline and consistency: a court should follow an existing Division Bench view in matters involving substantially similar facts unless cogent reasons or distinguishing circumstances justify a different conclusion.

The Court also considered prior High Court decisions concerning compensation for lands acquired for the same Aji-4 project, including the Division Bench’s decision in First Appeal No. 121 of 2019 and allied matters, and subsequent decisions in First Appeal No. 4213 of 2021 and First Appeal No. 132 of 2022 and allied matters.

The Court found that earlier decisions had considered compensation for lands acquired for the same project, including lands at Jiragadh, and that the State had not identified any material difference in the acquired lands’ location, nature, fertility, or other relevant attributes.

Although the notification dates differed, that difference alone did not warrant a different valuation in the absence of a demonstrated distinguishing feature; moreover, the award under appeal was lower than compensation upheld in the cited matters.

The State’s objection to reliance on earlier reference-case valuations therefore did not justify interference, particularly given the consistent prior decisions and the State’s inability to distinguish the present facts.

It directed the Reference Court to disburse the remaining compensation to the original claimants after proper verification and identification.