Comparable lands in the same village with identical potentiality merit the same compensation rate.

The Section 4 notification for acquisition of the appellants’ lands was published on 2 February 1978.

The Land Acquisition Officer awarded ₹1.50 per sq. m.; on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, the Reference Court enhanced the amount to ₹7.50 per sq. m. for non-irrigated land and ₹9.38 per sq. m. for irrigated land.

The appellants sought further enhancement, relying on an award concerning lands in the same village, for which a Section 4 notification had issued two days earlier, on 31 January 1978.

In that proceeding, the Reference Court had awarded ₹35 per sq. m. for non-irrigated land and ₹43.75 per sq. m. for irrigated land.

The State had not challenged that award.

Whether the appellants were entitled to the compensation rates awarded for lands in the same village under the earlier notification, given the asserted similarity in location and potentiality

Whether the appellants were entitled to the difference between those rates and the amounts already awarded by the Reference Court

The Court considered the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including Sections 4 and 6, which provide for publication of acquisition notifications, Section 11, under which the Land Acquisition Officer makes an award, and Section 18, which permits a reference against that award.

The Court applied the principle that lands with the same potentiality and relevant characteristics may be valued consistently with a comparable award for land in the same village.

The Court accepted that the comparator lands were in the same village, had the same potentiality, and were subject to a Section 4 notification only two days before the notification for the appellants’ lands.

The State identified no material difference warranting a different valuation and acknowledged that it had not challenged the comparator award.

The Court therefore adopted the comparator rates for the appellants’ lands.

It calculated the additional compensation as ₹34.37 per sq. m. for irrigated land (₹43.75 minus ₹9.38) and ₹27.50 per sq. m. for non-irrigated land (₹35 minus ₹7.50).

The appellants were held entitled to total compensation of ₹43.75 per sq. m. for irrigated land and ₹35 per sq. m. for non-irrigated land, in addition to the amounts already awarded by the Reference Court.

The respondents were directed to deposit the additional compensation, together with statutory benefits, within eight weeks of receiving the judgment; the Reference Court was directed to disburse the amount in accordance with the settled procedure, after deducting court fees, if any.