Libertatem Magazine

Gujarat High Court Allows Appeal Regarding the Enhancing of the Claim Under Vadi Irrigation Scheme Related To Amreli District

Contents of this Page


The Court on 10.08.2020 was pleased to pass the order in the First Appeal of 2018 and allied matters. Wherein, concerning villages situated in the Amreli district, the reference court passed a batch of appeals challenge awards for the lands acquired for the public purpose of the Vadi Irrigation Project.  

Applicant’s Submissions

Mr G.M. Amin was the learned advocate to the Appellant. He had submitted that the present appeals were like the appeals which were decided by the Division Bench of this Court on 07.08.2018 by First Appeal of 2012. Whereby, similar awards of the same village were challenged and the purpose of the acquisition was also the same i.e., Vadi Irrigation Scheme. Similar appeals were decided by this Court, where they relied upon decisions of the Apex Court and allowed all those appeals by improving claim from what was awarded by the reference court. He had also assured the Court that there was no distinguishable feature in the case on hand.

Respondent’s Submissions

Learned AGP Mr Antani had submitted that the case on hand was also identical to the group as referred above. Hence, both sides requested the Court to consider the case of the similar case mentioned above and dismiss the present appeals. 

Consideration by Court

The court took into consideration the submissions made by both parties. After which they noticed that the purpose of acquisition of the first group of appeals was Vadi Irrigation Scheme. Hence, after considering those cases, the Division Bench increased the amount to the extent mentioned in the said decision. The relevant paragraphs read that, “Insofar as First Appeals No.2825 to 2359 of 2012 and First Appeals No.229 to 246 of 2016 were concerned, the notifications under Section 4 of the Act had been issued on varying dates in 1996.”

Considering the market value of the lands to be Rs.50/¬ per sq. meter in 1993, the appellants would be entitled to an enhancement of 10% p.a. for three years. The market value of the lands had come to Rs.50/¬ plus Rs.15/¬ = Rs.65/¬ per sq. meter for jirayat lands. For bagayat lands, the market value was to be one and a half times the rate for jirayat lands. So, the market value of bagayat lands had come to Rs.75.00/¬ plus Rs.22.50 = Rs.97.50 per sq. meter.

It was considered that the Reference Court had awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.20/¬ per sq. meter for jirayat land and Rs.30/per sq. meter for bagayat land. The appellants were thus entitled to additional compensation of Rs.45/¬ per sq. meter for jirayat land and Rs.67.50 per sq. meter for bagayat land.

Since this court had determined the market value of jirayat land at Rs.65/- per sq. meter and Rs.97.50 per sq. meter for bagayat land concerning village Mangvapal. Wherein the notification under Section 4 of the Act came to be issued on 1.2.1996. The court deemed it fit to adopt the said market value as the basis to determine the market value in the present group of appeals. Thus, adopting the market value of Jirayat land and Bagayat land as mentioned, the appellants would be entitled to a 10% increase p.a. for eight years, i.e., from 1996 to 2004. Accordingly, the market value of the lands would come to Rs.117/- per sq. meter for jirayat land and Rs.175.50 per sq. meter for bagayat land. Further entitling the appellants to extra compensation at the rate of Rs.97/- per sq. meter for jirayat land and Rs.145 per sq. meter for bagayat land.

Yet another group that was brought to the notice was the group of the First Appeal headed by First Appeal No. 4227 of 2018 decided on 08.10.2018 in which also similar order was passed to enhance the amount of compensation. The court perused both the orders and couldn’t find any distinguishable circumstances. Accordingly, the Court accepted the request of the appellant and enhanced the amount. 

Court’s Directions

The present appeals were allowed in part and the impugned awards were modified to some extent. The appellants were also entitled to extra compensation. 

Click here to view full judgment. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google NewsInstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author