Additional market value @12% under Section 30(3) must be computed on the total value inclusive of multiplication factor.

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

While 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)

The 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

Section 26 defines "market value," with sub-section (2) requiring the application of a multiplication factor for rural areas

Section 30(3) mandates an award of 12% per annum on "such market value"

The 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

The court further applied the principle of statutory interpretation from Central Bank of India v. Ravindra [(2002) 1 SCC 369] regarding the adjective "such"

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

The 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

Regarding 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

the 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

The court directed the competent authority to pass the modified award within six weeks

It 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