Kalubhai Khatubhai vs State Of Gujarat Through The Secretary

2023 INSC 713 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7791-7796 OF 2013

KALUBHAI KHATUBHAI ETC. ETC. …APPELLANTS

Versus

STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. These appeals, by special leave, are at the instance of

affected landowners. Their lands were acquired for the

Vadodara Branch Canal of Narmada Project (hereafter “the

project”, for short). Exception is taken by the appellants

to the common judgment and order dated 28th March,

2012 passed by a learned Judge of the Gujarat High Court

whereby six appeals (First Appeal Nos.4383 to 4388 of

2008) carried by the State of Gujarat and two of its officers

under section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894

(hereafter “the Act”, for short) from a judgment and award Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2023.08.16 12:13:02 IST dated 10th May, 2007 of the Reference Court were allowed. Reason:

As a consequence, the award under section 11 of the Act

1 stood restored and compensation for the acquired lands as

awarded by the Reference Court to the appellants stood

reduced by exactly half.

2. It is not in dispute that lands comprised, inter alia, in

villages Morlipura, Kumetha and Nimeta of Waghodia

taluka, district Vadodara were acquired for the project

commencing with notifications issued under section 4 of

the Act on diverse dates. The hiatus between issuance of

the section 4 notifications for villages Morlipura and

Kumetha was not too substantial. Whereas the lands of

the appellants situated in village Morlipura were acquired

pursuant to section 4 notification dated 26th June, 1986

giving rise to L.A.Q. Case No. 86 of 1985, the process for

acquisition of lands in village Kumetha was triggered by a

notification dated 16th January, 1986 which, in turn, gave

rise to L.A.Q. Case No. 85 of 1985. However, the date of

the section 4 notification for acquisition lands in village

Nimeta happens to be 18th June, 1981, which led to L.A.Q.

Case No. Nimeta/81 being registered.

3. Insofar as the lands of the appellants are concerned,

award dated 26th November, 1987 was made by the Land

Acquisition Officer (hereafter “LAO”, for short). In

awarding compensation payable to the appellants, the LAO

calculated the market value of their lands @ Rs.19,000/-

2 per hectare (i.e., Rs.1.90 per square meter). Reference

having been sought by the appellants under section 18 of

the Act, Land Reference Case Nos. 120 to 122 and 125 to

127 of 1991 were registered. The Reference Court by its

judgment and award dated 10th May, 2007 enhanced the

amount of compensation by returning a finding that

market value of the land should have been reckoned as

Rs.4,00,000/- per hectare (i.e., Rs.40/- per square

meter). In so determining, the Reference Court relied on

the award of the Reference Court dated 18th August, 2004

in Reference Case Nos. 499 to 550 of 1990 (Ext.29).

Incidentally, there the section 4 notification was issued on

20th August, 1986 and the lands sought to be acquired

were comprised in village Dumad. Also, the purpose of

acquisition was different, viz. for construction of highway

and not for the project. Aggrieved by the determination

made by the Reference Court, the State carried the same

in appeals before the High Court which succeeded as noted

above.

4. While reducing compensation payable to the appellants,

the learned Judge of the High Court observed that the

Reference Court was not justified in placing reliance on

Ext. 29. Also, His Lordship had taken note of a Bench

decision dated 4th August, 2005 of the same High Court in

3 First Appeal Nos. 2151 to 2168 of 2005 (arising out of

Reference Case Nos. 165 to 182 of 1983) where, while

considering compensation to be paid to the affected

owners of lands comprised in village Nimeta, the Bench

had substituted determination of market value of the

acquired lands @ Rs.10/- per square meter by Rs.7/- per

square meter.

5. The High Court was right in its interference with the order

of the Reference Court while holding that acquisition of

lands in village Dumad (which were not acquired for the

project) could not be a guiding factor for determining

compensation. However, at the same time, the learned

Judge of the High Court fell in error in reducing the

compensation payable to the appellants based on

compensation awarded in respect of lands comprised in

village Nimeta. In our considered view, the lands

comprised in village Nimeta having been acquired in

pursuance of a section 4 notification dated 18th June,

1981, which was at least 5 years prior to the acquisition

by notification dated 26 th June, 1986, such prior

acquisition and compensation paid to the landowners

affected by the same acquisition could not have served as

a guiding factor for the High Court to determine

compensation payable to the appellants.

4

6. We, thus, hold that both the Reference Court as well as

the Appellate Court committed errors in determining fair

and just compensation payable to the appellants. We

would have embarked on our task of such determination

based on the materials on record, instead of ordering a

remand having regard to the lapse of time since

acquisition was made; however, such task is cut short

because of a development, which has its own significance,

post grant of leave to appeal by this Court on 2nd

September, 2013. It has been brought to our notice that

other affected landowners of village Morlipura had sought

for reference under section 18 of the Act after their lands

were acquired for the project giving rise to Reference Case

Nos.123-124 of 1991 (renumbered as Reference Case

Nos.61-62 of 2017). Their lands were also covered by

L.A.Q. Case No. 86 of 1985. The Reference Court allowed

the reference by its judgment and award dated 21st March,

2018 and determined market value of the acquired lands

@ Rs,4,00,000/- per hectare, being the identical

determination made by the Reference Court vide

judgment and award dated 10th May, 2007 in case of the

appellants, since reduced by the High Court by the

impugned judgment and order dated 28th March, 2012.

What appeared to us to be significant was the submission

5 of learned counsel for the appellants that the State of

Gujarat had accepted the judgment and award dated 21st

March, 2018 without carrying the same in appeal and that

it also disbursed the amount of compensation payable to

the affected landowner (claimants before the Reference

Court) in terms thereof.

7. For the purpose of confirmation of the aforesaid

submission, we had requested learned counsel for the

respondents to verify and report. She has placed on record

a communication dated 10th August, 2023 received by her

from the Special Land Acquisition Officer (Narmada

Project), Vadodara. A perusal thereof reveals that the

judgment and award dated 21st March, 2018 of the

Reference Court has, in fact, been accepted and the

additional amount which was awarded has been deposited

in court on 28th January, 2019.

8. In the light of such confirmation, we are of the view that

the appellants cannot be worse off than the other affected

landowners of the same village, i.e., Morlipura, who have

been paid more compensation. In a welfare state like ours

where we have promised all the citizens social and

economic justice, it would be fair and just if the appellants

are meted equal treatment as the other affected

6 landowners (claimants in Reference Case Nos.61-62 of

2017).

9. For the reason aforesaid, we set aside the impugned

judgment and order dated 28 th March, 2012 of the High

Court and restore the judgment and award of the

Reference Court dated 10th May, 2007. Whatever amounts

the appellants are entitled to in terms of the Reference

Court’s judgment and award, minus the amounts so far

received, shall be released with simple interest @ 5% per

annum from 10th May, 2007, as early as possible but

positively within ninety days of receipt of an authenticated

copy of this judgment and order.

10.The appeals are accordingly allowed, without any order

for costs.

………..…………………J. [BELA M. TRIVEDI]

..…..………….…………J. [DIPANKAR DATTA]

NEW DELHI;

16TH AUGUST, 2023.

7