Compensation awards based on comparable instances under fresh reconsideration must be remanded for fresh adjudication.

The Appellant (ONGC) challenged the judgment and award dated 13.05.2008 passed by the 9th Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana in LAR Nos. 4858 and 4871 of 2003.

The lands of the claimants in Village Merda, Mehsana, were acquired for the ONGC IJH-8 project under the Land Acquisition Act. The Section 4 notification was published on 23.02.2000, and the Section 6 notification on 26.06.2001.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded Rs. 17/- per sq. mtr.

On reference under Section 18, the Reference Court increased the total compensation to Rs. 113/- per sq. mtr. (an additional Rs. 96/- per sq. mtr.), along with solatium and interest.

The Appellant contended that the matter required remand because the exemplar judgments used to determine this compensation were themselves remanded for fresh consideration by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court.

Whether the judgment and award of the Reference Court should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration in light of the Coordinate Bench’s decision regarding comparable land instances in the same village.

The Court applied the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, specifically Section 4 (preliminary notification), Section 6 (declaration of intended acquisition), Section 11 (enquiry and award by Collector), and Section 18 (reference to Court).

The court also relied on the judicial principle of consistency and the doctrine of "comparable instances," following the precedent set by the Coordinate Bench of the Gujarat High Court in First Appeal No. 2292 of 2009, which held that when the base exemplar award for a village is remanded for reconsideration, subsequent awards based on that exemplar must also be remanded.

The Court noted that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was largely influenced by prior awards in the same or nearby villages, such as LAR No. 5371 of 2003.

However, a Coordinate Bench of the High Court, in First Appeal No. 1612 of 2009 and First Appeal No. 2292 of 2009, had already quashed those exemplar awards and remanded them to the Reference Court for fresh adjudication.

The High Court reasoned that since the current acquisition involved the same village (Merda) and similar timelines (1999–2003), maintaining the current award would be inconsistent with the pending reconsideration of the primary evidence.

Consequently, the Court found it necessary to remand the matter to allow the Reference Court to decide the compensation afresh based on the outcome of the remanded exemplar cases.

The Court remanded LAR Nos. 4858 of 2003 and 4871 of 2003 to the Reference Court for a fresh decision.

The parties were granted liberty to lead further evidence.

The Reference Court was directed to decide the reference within six weeks from the first hearing date, and any amount currently lying with the Court was ordered to remain in a Fixed Deposit until the final decision.