Land cannot be classified as Bagayat without contemporaneous proof of irrigation at the Section 4 notification.

The State acquired land situated at village Zampodar, Taluka Rajula, District Amreli, for a public purpose.

The notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was published on 28 October 1991, followed by the Section 6 notification on 8 October 1992.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 568.50 per acre for Bagayat land and Rs. 284.25 per acre for Jirayat land on 21 October 1994.

The appellant sought a reference under Section 18, contending that the acquired land was Bagayat land and should receive higher compensation.

The Reference Court partly allowed the reference and fixed compensation at Rs. 10 per square metre by treating the land as Jirayat, rather than Rs. 13.05 per square metre applicable to Bagayat land.

The appellant challenged that determination in the present appeal.

Whether the acquired land was Bagayat land, possessing operative irrigation facilities, or Jirayat land cultivated substantially through rainfall, as on the date of the Section 4 notification?

Whether the Reference Court correctly determined compensation at Rs. 10 per square metre for Jirayat land by applying comparable rates and escalation applicable to the locality?

The Court applied the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 4, 6, 11(1), and 18, governing acquisition, the Collector’s award, and reference proceedings.

For determining the nature and market value of acquired land, the relevant date is the publication of the Section 4 notification; subsequent improvements or post-acquisition evidence cannot retrospectively establish a higher land classification.

The burden rests on the claimant seeking Bagayat classification to produce cogent, contemporaneous documentary and oral evidence proving the existence and operation of irrigation facilities on the relevant date.

The Court also relied on the comparable determination in First Appeal No. 1504 of 2001 concerning land in the same village, treating the judicially determined rates for Bagayat and Jirayat land as a reliable benchmark, with appropriate escalation for the time gap between notifications.

The appellant relied principally on Exh. 41 to establish the existence of a well and the use of water for irrigation.

However, that document was dated 11 July 2005, whereas the relevant acquisition occurred pursuant to the Section 4 notification dated 28 October 1991; it therefore could not prove the land’s character on the crucial date.

The revenue records showed only one crop and two Kharif crops, while Column No. 11 contained no entry recording irrigation facilities.

The appellant’s oral evidence, including the deposition of Yashvinikumar Dayashankar Shrivastav, also failed to establish an operational well or active irrigation at the relevant time.

Applying the comparable rates from First Appeal No. 1504 of 2001, the Court accepted Rs. 8.50 per square metre as the base rate for Jirayat land and the Reference Court’s 10% annual escalation, resulting in Rs. 9.86, rounded to Rs. 10 per square metre.

Since Bagayat classification was not proved, the Reference Court’s assessment was found factually and legally sound.

The land was correctly classified as Jirayat land, and compensation at Rs. 10 per square metre was properly awarded.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and award of the Reference Court were confirmed.

Any interim relief was vacated, interim applications were disposed of, and the record was directed to be returned to the trial court.