Accepted valuation for adjoining village applies equally to acquired irrigated and non-irrigated lands.

The appellants’ agricultural lands situated at Village Bhapi, Taluka Tharad, District Banaskantha, were acquired for the Narmada Project pursuant to a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 29 April 1997.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer passed an award under Section 11 on 20 October 1999, fixing compensation at Rs.2.10 per sq. metre for irrigated land and Rs.1.40 per sq. metre for non-irrigated land.

On references under Section 18, the Reference Court determined the market value at Rs.55 per sq. metre for irrigated land and Rs.37 per sq. metre for non-irrigated land by judgment dated 19 August 2017 and decree dated 24 August 2017.

The claimants appealed, contending that the Reference Court ought to have applied the market value of Rs.76 per sq. metre determined for the adjoining village of Vami in First Appeal No. 701 of 2017, which had been accepted by the State.

Whether the market value determined for comparable land in the adjoining village of Vami in First Appeal No. 701 of 2017 could be applied to the lands acquired in Village Bhapi?

Whether the claimants were entitled to compensation at Rs.76 per sq. metre for both irrigated and non-irrigated land, instead of the different rates awarded by the Reference Court?

The Court applied Sections 4, 11 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning the acquisition notification, the Collector’s award and references for determination of enhanced compensation.

It applied the principle that market value may be determined by relying on awards or judicial determinations concerning comparable lands in adjoining villages and at or about the relevant notification date, particularly where the lands are similarly situated.

The Court relied on the decision in First Appeal No. 701 of 2017, which determined the market value of Vami land at Rs.76 per sq. metre for a Section 4 notification dated 28 August 1997 and which had been accepted and paid by the State.

The Court also referred to the principles stated in Mohammad Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2009) 14 SCC 367 and General Manager, ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, 2008 (4) GLR 2833, recognising awards relating to adjacent villages as relevant guides for determining fair market value.

The Court found that Village Bhapi and Village Vami shared a common boundary, making the Vami determination a relevant comparable benchmark.

Although an earlier decision concerning Vami had fixed the value at Rs.75 per sq. metre based on a 1999 notification, the later decision in First Appeal No. 701 of 2017 had determined the value at Rs.76 per sq. metre for a notification dated 28 August 1997, close to Bhapi’s notification dated 29 April 1997.

Since the State had accepted the Rs.76 determination and paid the corresponding compensation, and since the notification dates differed by only approximately four months, the Court held that the appellants should receive the same market value.

It further noted that the Division Bench decision had awarded an equal rate for irrigated and non-irrigated land; therefore, differentiation between the two categories in the present case was unwarranted.

The Court enhanced the market value of both irrigated and non-irrigated lands to Rs.76 per sq. metre, directing payment of the differential compensation to the claimants.

The remaining parts of the Reference Court’s judgment and decree were left undisturbed.

The record and proceedings, and any connected civil application, were directed to be sent back to the concerned court.