Land acquisition compensation is not restricted to the amount claimed by the landowner.

The appellant’s land in village Delath, District Shimla, was acquired for the construction of the Delath-Panda Dhar road following a Section 4 notification dated 28.01.2004

The Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 29.06.2006, which the appellant challenged via a reference petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ("the Act"), seeking enhancement to ₹2,00,000 per bigha

The Reference Court determined the actual market value of the land to be ₹2,58,704 per bigha (₹340.40 per centare)

However, the Reference Court restricted the final compensation to ₹2,00,000 per bigha, reasoning that the appellant had only claimed that specific amount in his relief clause

The appellant moved the High Court seeking the full determined market value

Section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as amended by Act 68 of 1984, which removed the previous ceiling that prevented courts from awarding more than the amount claimed by the applicant

The precedent set in Ashok Kumar another v. State of Haryana (2016), which held that it is the duty of the court to award just and fair compensation based on true market value irrespective of the owner's claim

The principles from Narendra others v. State of Uttar Pradesh others (2017), which established that access to justice for disadvantaged sections implies that a technical restriction in a claim—often due to inability to pay court fees—should not result in a denial of fair market value

The High Court noted that the 1984 amendment to Section 25 of the Act shifted the focus from a "cap on the maximum" to a "cap on the minimum" (ensuring the award is not less than the Collector’s offer)

The court found that the Reference Court erred by treating the appellant’s relief clause as a binding ceiling

Since the Reference Court had already factually concluded that the market value was ₹2,58,704 per bigha, restricting the award to ₹2,00,000 was a failure to provide "just and fair compensation"

The Court reasoned that the statutory duty to provide fair value overrides the specific quantum requested in the pleadings, provided the claimant pays the requisite difference in court fees

It held that the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation at the rate of ₹2,58,704 per bigha, along with all statutory benefits

The Court further directed the appellant to pay the difference in court fees based on the enhanced market value

All other terms of the original award remained unchanged