Gujarat HC Upholds ₹438/sq m Award, Says State Cannot Pick And Choose Among Same-Village Lands Acquired Under One Notification

The respondent’s land was acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, pursuant to a Section 4 notification dated 6 May 2010 and a Section 6 notification dated 31 March 2011.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.18.15 per sq. m.; on the claimant’s Section 18 reference, the Reference Court awarded additional compensation at Rs.438 per sq. m., relying on awards concerning adjoining lands.

The State appealed, contending that the comparable lands lacked similar potentiality.

The claimant relied on awards accepted by the State in other matters arising from the same notification and the same village; the State responded that those awards were not appealed because the amounts were below Rs.5 lakh.

Whether the State could challenge the compensation award in this case while accepting awards in other matters arising from the same notification and concerning land in the same village, based on the amount involved.

Whether the Reference Court’s award of additional compensation at Rs.438 per sq. m. should be interfered with on the State’s challenge to the comparability and potentiality of the lands.

The Court considered Sections 4, 6 and 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning acquisition notifications and reference proceedings.

Relying on Ali Mohammad Beigh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2017) 4 SCC 717, and Surinder Ahuja v. State of Punjab, 2026 INSC 1068, including its discussion of Union of India v. Harinder Pal Singh, the Court applied the principle that, in project-wide acquisitions involving nearby, identical or similar lands acquired for the same purpose, landowners should not be treated differently without strong reasons.

It held that the State could not adopt a “pick and choose” approach based on the smallness or largeness of the acquired land.

The State did not dispute that it had accepted awards in other matters arising from the same notification and relating to land in the same village; its explanation was that those awards involved amounts below Rs.5 lakh.

Applying the parity principle, the Court held that the State’s decision not to appeal those awards could not justify challenging this award merely because the claimant’s larger land area resulted in a higher total amount.

It therefore rejected the State’s challenge and found no basis to interfere with the Reference Court’s award.

The related civil application for stay was disposed of as not surviving following dismissal of the appeal.