Facts
The petitioner’s land was acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. An award was passed on 23.02.2018 (amended 14.10.2021) determining compensation
Source reference: p. 1While the authority applied the "multiplication factor 2" to calculate the market value under Section 26(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the '2013 Act'), it calculated the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) only on the "base market value" (pre-multiplication)
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner approached the High Court seeking the 12% benefit on the full multiplied market value, along with interest under Section 80 and rehabilitation benefits under Sch. II and III of the 2013 Act
Source reference: p. 2-3Issues
1. Whether the additional compensation of 12% per annum under Section 30(3) of the 2013 Act is to be calculated on the total market value (including the multiplication factor 2) or only on the base market value
Source reference: p. 4 / para. 72. Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest under Section 80 of the 2013 Act on the unpaid amount of additional compensation
Source reference: p. 11 / para. 153. Whether the petitioner is entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Second and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act
Source reference: p. 11 / para. 18Law Applied
Section 26 defines "market value," with sub-section (2) requiring the application of a multiplication factor for rural areas
Source reference: p. 6-7 / para. 96Section 30(3) mandates an award of 12% per annum on "such market value"
Source reference: p. 5 / para. 96The court relied on the precedent in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh [(2019) 9 SCC 304] to affirm that statutory benefits of the 2013 Act apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act
Source reference: p. 3 / para. 5The court further applied the principle of statutory interpretation from Central Bank of India v. Ravindra [(2002) 1 SCC 369] regarding the adjective "such"
Source reference: p. 5 / para. 100Reasoning
Relying on its previous decision in SCA No. 7561 of 2023, the court reasoned that the expression "market value" under Section 26 is the end product of all factors, including the multiplication factor
Source reference: p. 9 / para. 105The word "such" in Section 30(3) refers to the market value determined under Section 26 in its entirety; therefore, excluding the multiplication factor when calculating the 12% additional compensation would be an artificial distinction not supported by the statute
Source reference: p. 5-6 / para. 101Regarding interest, the court held that since the 12% amount is part of the compensation package that should have been paid originally, interest under Section 80 (9% and 15%) is applicable on the unpaid differential
Source reference: p. 10 / para. 116the court denied claims for Schedule II and III benefits, citing "delay and laches" and the principle of "estoppel and acquiescence" as the petitioner failed to raise these claims during the 2015-2016 acquisition process
Source reference: p. 11-12 / para. 19Holding
The court partly allowed the petition. It held that the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) must be computed on the market value determined after applying the multiplication factor 2
The court directed the competent authority to pass the modified award within six weeks
Source reference: p. 13 / para. 17It granted statutory interest under Section 80 on the unpaid amount, but limited it to a period of three years from the date of the award due to the petitioner's delay in approaching the court. The prayers for benefits under the Second and Third Schedules were rejected
Source reference: p. 13 / para. 8(ii) and 8(iii)Original Court PDF
BHAGATSINH DAULATSINH DODIYAvsCOMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in