Claimants under the same acquisition notification are entitled to parity in compensation.

The appellant’s land in Village Bhapi, Taluka Tharad, was acquired for the Narmada Main Canal Project. Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act were published on 29 April 1997 and 6 November 1997, respectively. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation of ₹2.10 per sq. m. for irrigated land and ₹1.40 per sq. m. for non-irrigated land; on reference under Section 18, the Reference Court enhanced the amount to ₹55 and ₹37 per sq. m., respectively.

The appellant sought further enhancement, relying on decisions concerning land acquired under the same notifications and for the same project.

The State did not dispute the similarity of the acquisition circumstances, but sought exclusion of interest for a 141-day delay.

Whether the appellant was entitled to the same market value as claimants whose land was acquired under the same notifications, in the same village, for the same purpose.

Whether interest on the enhanced compensation should be excluded for the 141-day delay associated with restoration of the appeal.

Under the Land Acquisition Act, Sections 4 and 6 concern notifications for acquisition, Section 11 provides for the Collector’s award, and Section 18 enables a claimant to seek a reference against that award.

The Court applied the principle reflected in its decisions in First Appeal No. 141 of 2026 and allied matters and First Appeal No. 3838 of 2026: where land was acquired under the same notifications, in the same village, and for the same purpose, claimants could receive the same market value as previously determined, absent distinguishing facts.

The Court also directed that interest would not be payable for the 141-day delay identified in connection with restoration.

The appellant’s land was acquired under the same Sections 4 and 6 notifications, in the same village and for the same Narmada canal project as the lands in the earlier decisions. The State identified no material factual distinction, and the AGP could not controvert the appellant’s reliance on those decisions.

Applying the prior determination of ₹76 per sq. m. for both irrigated and non-irrigated land, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to that rate.

It separately addressed the State’s submission on delay by excluding interest for 141 days.

The claimant was not entitled to interest for the 141-day delay.

The authorities were directed to deposit the compensation and statutory benefits within eight weeks; the Reference Court was directed to disburse the amount in accordance with the settled procedure, after deducting court fees, if any.