Case Note & Summary
The case involves a first appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and award dated 12.04.2012 passed by the 4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in LAR No.233/2008 (arising from common order in LAR 230/2008 to 270/2008). The reference court had determined additional compensation for land acquired in village Saduthala at Rs.134 per sq.mtr. The appellant's counsel submitted that this appeal was inadvertently left out from a group of appeals decided by the same court on 24.01.2025, wherein the court had remanded the matters to the reference court for fresh determination of market value based on additional evidence. The appellant sought identical relief. The learned AGP did not dispute this. The High Court, considering the submissions and referring to its earlier decision in First Appeal No.3913/2024, held that the same order should be passed and remanded the matter to the reference court for fresh determination of market value on the basis of additional evidence already placed on record. The court directed the reference court to decide the matter afresh within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Remand - Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appeal was left out from a group of appeals decided earlier by the same court, which had remanded the matters for fresh determination of market value based on additional evidence. The court, following its earlier decision, remanded the present appeal to the reference court for fresh determination of market value, as the appellant sought identical relief. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the matter should be remanded back to the reference court for fresh determination of market value based on additional evidence, in line with a previous judgment of the same court in a related group of appeals.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment and award dated 12.04.2012, and remanded the matters to the reference court for fresh determination of market value on the basis of additional evidence already placed on record. The reference court was directed to decide the matters afresh within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
Law Points
- Remand for fresh determination of market value
- Land acquisition compensation
- Additional evidence
- Section 54 of Land Acquisition Act
- Section 96 of CPC
Case Details
2026 LawText (GUJ) (03) 417
R/First Appeal No. 408 of 2026 with R/First Appeal No. 409 of 2026, R/First Appeal No. 410 of 2026, R/First Appeal No. 411 of 2026, R/First Appeal No. 412 of 2026, R/First Appeal No. 413 of 2026
Mr. Rakesh R. Patel for the Appellant(s), Ms. Himani Shah, AGP for the Defendant(s)
Legal Heirs of Deceased Patel Vithalbhai Joitaram & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 read with Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and award of the reference court determining additional compensation for acquired land.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought remand of the matter to the reference court for fresh determination of market value based on additional evidence, identical to the relief granted in a related group of appeals.
Filing Reason
The appeal was left out from a group of appeals decided by the same court on 24.01.2025, which had remanded the matters for fresh determination of market value.
Previous Decisions
The reference court (4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana) passed judgment and award dated 12.04.2012 in LAR No.233/2008 determining additional compensation at Rs.134 per sq.mtr. The High Court in First Appeal No.3913/2024 and related appeals remanded the matters for fresh determination of market value based on additional evidence.
Issues
Whether the present appeal should be remanded to the reference court for fresh determination of market value based on additional evidence, following the earlier decision of the same court in a related group of appeals.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned advocate Mr. Rakesh Patel submitted that this appeal was left out from the group decided on 24.01.2025 and sought identical remand order. Learned AGP Ms. Himani Shah did not dispute and submitted to pass appropriate order.
Ratio Decidendi
Where an appeal is left out from a group of appeals that were remanded for fresh determination of market value based on additional evidence, the same relief should be granted to the left-out appeal to ensure consistency and avoid discrimination.
Judgment Excerpts
Considering the submissions, this Court has referred the decision render by this Court in first appeal no.3913/2024 wherein it is held as under:
In that background, learned advocate Mr.Rakesh Patel submits that identical order is required to be passed in the present appeal herein and matter is required to be remanded back.
Procedural History
The reference court (4th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana) passed judgment and award dated 12.04.2012 in LAR No.233/2008 (arising from common order in LAR 230/2008 to 270/2008) determining additional compensation at Rs.134 per sq.mtr. The appellant filed first appeals before the High Court. A related group of appeals was decided on 24.01.2025 and remanded for fresh determination. The present appeals were left out and are now being decided.
Acts & Sections
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894: Section 54
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 96
