C/FA/3052/2011 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3052 of 2011 With R/CROSS OBJECTION NO. 85 of 2012 In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 3052 of 2011 ========================================================== SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER & ORS. Versus H/O BHAILALBHAI MANSANGBHAI & ORS. ========================================================== Appearance: MS DHARITRI PANCHOLI, AGP for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2,3 ROHAN LAVKUMAR(9248) for the Appellant(s) No. 3 MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Defendant(s) No. 6 MR SP MAJMUDAR(3456) for the Defendant(s) No. 6 RULE SERVED for the Defendant(s) No. 10,11,1.1,12,1.2,13,1.3,1.4,1.5,2,3,4,5,7,8,9 ========================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Date : 21/07/2026 ORDER 1. By way of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the common judgment and award dated 31.01.2009 passed by the learned Reference Court being learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch in LAR Nos.1 to 21 of 1997 whereby, the Reference Court has awarded Rs.90.60ps. per square meter for the acquired land as an additional compensation, over and above the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer together with solatium and interest. 2. The facts of the present case are that the appellants have acquired the land situated at Village: Osara, Taluka & C/FA/3052/2011 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026 District: Bharuch for public purpose under Narmada Project. Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 19.10.1991 and Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was published on 2.7.1992. The award under Section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officerin LAQ Case No. 13/1991 and awarded the compensation at Rs.1.90/- per sq mtr. Being aggrieved by the said award, the claimants have preferred the aforesaid Land Reference Cases before the Reference Court whereby, the Reference Court awarded additional compensation at Rs.90.60 paisa. per square meter vide its judgment and award dated 31.01.2009. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. 4. Heard learned advocates for the parties. 5. It appears that during the pendency of this appeal, another group of appeals filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat, which covers the issue involved in the present appeal, were withdrawn in the Lok Adalat. Since the claim in the said appeals was settled in the Lok Adalat and the amount involved in the present appeal is exceeded the limit, the State Government cannot be permitted to contest the appeal/s and challenge the impugned judgment and award in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivappa Etc. Vs. The Chief Engineer and others reported in 2023 LiveLaws SC 312. Relevant observations C/FA/3052/2011 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026 at paragraphs 9 to 11 are reproduced herein below for benefits:- “9. In the said case also, the Reference Court had granted compensation at the rate of Rs.4,61,250/- per acre. The High Court, vide order dated 8.3.2016 has allowed the said appeal(s) to be withdrawn and the same had been placed on record before this Court in I. A. No.59170 of 2016. Though a period of more than six years had lapsed, the said position is not contested by the respondents. 10. The State or its instrumentalities cannot be permitted to adopt an attitude of pick and choose. 11. If the State has accepted the award of the Reference Court in respect of some of the claimants, it cannot be permitted to adopt a different treatment to the other claimants. Such an attitude smacks of patent discrimination.” 6. Considering the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, since the appellant does not dispute the fact that the appellant either, after having preferred appeals, some appeals had withdrawn as the claim as per the Circular was petty claim and thereafter, merely on account of the fact that the additional amount awarded to the present claimants exceeds the cut-off for a petty claim, the State would not be permitted to question the same, more particularly since the State has accepted the very same award of the learned Reference Court with regard to other claimants. As observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, such an attitude would smack of patent discrimination and cannot be countenanced. Page 3 of 4 C/FA/3052/2011 ORDER DATED: 21/07/2026 7. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed. If the appellants have not deposited the amount then the same shall be deposited before the Reference Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the amount is deposited by the appellants before the Reference Court, the same shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants after verifying their bank details through RTGS / NEFT. Registry is directed to send back the record and proceedings to the Reference Court forthwith. No order as to costs. 8. In view of disposal of First Appeal, cross objection does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J. C. DOSHI,J) SHEKHAR P. BARVE Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge. Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 21/07/2026 15:48:24