SUMITRABEN SINGABHAI GAMIT vs THE STATE OF GUJARAT

2025 INSC 521
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5095 OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.23668 of 2024)

SUMITRABEN SINGABHAI GAMIT .…. APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. ..…RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T
MANMOHAN, J
1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned
st
judgment and final order dated 21 August, 2024 passed by the High
Court of Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No. 20392 of 2023.
2. Ms. Aastha Mehta, learned counsel for the Appellant stated that the
High Court had erroneously held that the date for determination of market
value of yet to be acquired He-0-11-41 sq. meters land of Survey No.119
st
shall be 01 January, 2014 i.e., the date of commencement of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the „RFCTLARR
Act, 2013‟) instead of the date on which acquisition notification is issued
as prescribed in proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2025.04.21
18:23:49 IST
Reason:
SLP (C) No.23668 of 2024 Page 1 of 4

3. She stated that the Appellant is the owner of Revenue Block No.119
(new Revenue Block No.126), situated at village Moje Sarkuva, Taluka
Vyara, District Tapi, measuring He-0-36-87 sq. meters (total area). She
further stated that out of this land, an area measuring He-0-17-84 sq.
meters had been acquired earlier for the purpose of constructing the Ukai
High Level Cantor Canal. She, however, emphasised that an additional
portion of He-0-11-41 sq. meters had been utilized without carrying out
any acquisition proceeding or payment of compensation.
4. She stated that the High Court directed the State of Gujarat to file
an affidavit regarding the alleged utilization of the land. Pursuant to the
said direction, the Executive Engineer, Ukai Dam Division-1 filed an
affidavit admitting that He-0-11-41 sq. meters of Appellant‟s land had
been utilized for construction of canal without any legal acquisition or
payment of compensation.
5. She submitted that the High Court failed to take into account
Section 26(1) of the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013 especially its proviso which
reads as under:-
“Provided that the date for determination of market value
shall be the date on which the notification has been issued
under Section 11”.

6. She submitted that since the acquisition process for He-0-11-41 sq.
meters of land is yet to commence, the compensation amount can be
determined only when there is Section 11 Notification qua the said land.
According to her, there is no discretion given in the statute for the purpose
of deciding the date of compensation. In support of her submission, she
relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Sabita
Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ-C No.30088 of 2022 .
SLP (C) No.23668 of 2024 Page 2 of 4

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Gujarat candidly
admitted that the acquiring body namely, the Executive Engineer, Ukai
Division-1 at Ukai Dam has till date not been able to submit the proposal
for acquisition of He-0-11-41 sq. meters on the online portal known as
“PM Gati Shaki Portal” due to a technical error. She assured this Court
that the process of acquisition would be commenced as soon as the
technical error is resolved.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
view that the issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is the
interpretation of proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 in
the context of the date that is relevant for determining the market value of
the land being acquired.
9. This Court is of the view that the said provision lays down the
methodology for computing the market value of the land on the date of the
acquisition notification. The use of the word „shall‟ in Section 26(1)
proviso is reflective of the legislative mandate that Section 11 Notification
is the date for determination of the compensation.
10. This Court has no doubt that the legislative intent is to ensure that
the land owners receive fair compensation reflective of the market value
st
prevailing at the time of acquisition. By fixing the date of 01 January,
2014 as the date for determination of market value, the impugned order
deprives the Appellant of compensation at the 2023 rates, which must be
considerably higher.
11. In fact, the legislative scheme does not give discretion to the Courts
to select a date for valuation. On the contrary, RFCTLARR Act, 2013
expressly mandates that compensation/valuation must be determined as of
SLP (C) No.23668 of 2024 Page 3 of 4

the date of Notification under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 –
which in this present case is yet to be issued.
12. This Court is also of the view that the date of enactment of
st
RFCTLARR Act, 2013 i.e. 01 January, 2014 has no relevance to fresh
st
acquisition initiated under the statute. The date of 01 January, 2014 is
relevant only if land acquisition proceedings had been initiated under the
old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and where no award had been made
before the enforcement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
13. Consequently, this Court agrees with the submission of the learned
counsel for Appellant that proviso to Section 26(1) explicitly states that
the market value of the land shall be determined as on the date of issuance
of the Notification under Section 11 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013
14. Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed and the impugned
st
judgment and final order dated 21 August, 2024 passed in R/Special
Civil Application No. 20392 of 2023 is set aside and it is directed that the
date of determination of market value of He-0-11-41 sq. meters land of
Survey No.119 shall be the date on which Notification under Section 11 of
the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is issued by the Respondents.

...…...……………….J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]


……………….J.
[MANMOHAN ]

New Delhi;
April 21, 2025
SLP (C) No.23668 of 2024 Page 4 of 4