De-escalation cannot rest on a later award for geographically dissimilar lands.

The claimants owned 20,847 sq. metres in Gat No. 153 at Airoli, including land abutting the Thane–Belapur Road. The land was acquired for residential development; the Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs. 1.50 per sq. metre, and the Reference Court enhanced the rate to Rs. 8 per sq. metre, relying on an award concerning land in Airoli and the subject land’s road access.

The State’s appeal against the enhancement had already been dismissed. By cross-objection, the claimants sought further enhancement, relying principally on a Supreme Court award of Rs. 25 per sq. metre for land at Roadpali and seeking application of de-escalation.

1. Whether the Supreme Court’s award of Rs. 25 per sq. metre for land at Roadpali could support further enhancement of compensation for the Airoli land through de-escalation.

2. Whether the claimants established a sufficient connection in time and location, or other evidentiary basis, to justify compensation above Rs. 8 per sq. metre.

Under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, market value is ordinarily assessed as at the date of the Section 4 notification; extension of the relevant date is confined to exceptional circumstances.

Earlier or later awards may be considered, and escalation or de-escalation applied, where the evidence establishes sufficient proximity of time and location; post-notification instances must also be genuine and not reflect value increases caused by the acquisition.

Fair compensation is a necessary feature of acquisition, but the claimant must establish a basis for the enhanced rate.

The judgment also cited Ram Kishan v. State of Haryana, 2025 8 SCC 431, as an example of de-escalation being applied to a comparable base value.

The Court declined to use the Roadpali award as a basis for enhancement because that land was in Panvel Taluka, whereas the acquired land was in Thane Taluka; the Court found insufficient similarity despite the claimants’ reliance on the proximity of the notification dates.

No contemporary sale instances were produced, and the Google map relied on by the claimants was objected to by the State.

The Court accepted that escalation or de-escalation could be applied in an appropriate case, but found no connecting material establishing the required proximity of time and location. It therefore found no evidentiary basis to increase the Reference Court’s rate.

The proceeding was dismissed without costs. The judgment’s operative sentence states, “Appeal is dismissed”; in context, the Court had addressed and rejected the claimants’ cross-objection seeking further enhancement.