Claimants are entitled to compensation based on market values determined for their specific village, regardless of inadvertent oral admissions.

The State Government acquired lands in Rajula village, Amreli district, under L.A.Q. Case No. 47/89 for the Dhatarwadi-2 irrigation project.

Notifications under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published in 1990 and 1992, respectively.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs. 300/Are for Bagayat (irrigated) land and Rs. 200/Are for Jirayat (non-irrigated) land.

Aggrieved, the claimants sought references under Section 18. The Reference Court, relying on a precedent regarding Khakbai village (First Appeal No. 1504/2001), awarded Rs. 12.50/sq. mtr. for irrigated and Rs. 9.50/sq. mtr. for non-irrigated land.

The appellants challenged this, claiming they were entitled to the higher rates established for Rajula village in the same precedent.

1. Whether the Reference Court erred in applying the market value of land situated in Khakbai village instead of Rajula village, despite the acquired land being located in Rajula

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation based on the principle of equality with other claimants from the same village under the same project

The court primarily applied the principles of fair compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.

It relied on the "Principle of Equality" in land compensation, ensuring that similarly situated landholders affected by the same project receive uniform rates.

The court further utilized the doctrine of judicial finality regarding market value determined by a Co-ordinate Bench in First Appeal No. 1504 of 2001, which set specific rates for Rajula village (Rs. 24/sq. mtr. irrigated and Rs. 19/sq. mtr. non-irrigated).

The court observed that while the respondent (State) argued the claimant had admitted the land was in Khakbai village during deposition, the documentary evidence—specifically the Section 4 notification—conclusively established the land was situated in Rajula village.

The High Court held that documentary records prevail over oral testimony in determining location for compensation purposes.

Since a Co-ordinate Bench in First Appeal No. 1504 of 2001 had already determined the market value for Rajula village at significantly higher rates than Khakbai, and the State had accepted that judgment, there was no justification for denying the same rates to the present appellants.

The State was directed to deposit the enhanced amount within eight weeks, and the appellants were directed to pay any deficiency in court fees.