Market Value Determination Based on Comparable Predicate Awards for Regional Highway Land Acquisition Confirmed.

The State of Gujarat acquired lands in villages Bolundra and Tintoi, Taluka Modasa, District Arvalli, for the construction of a four-lane highway (Shamlaji–Modasa–Malpur–Lunawada–Godhra–Halol)

Notifications under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, were published in June 2009 for Bolundra and March 2010 for Tintoi

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded compensation at rates of ₹7/- per sq. mtr. for Bolundra and ₹58.50 per sq. mtr. for Tintoi

The Reference Court significantly enhanced the compensation to ₹1,773/- per sq. mtr. for Bolundra and between ₹2,148/- to ₹2,793/- per sq. mtr. for Tintoi, relying on prior awards for similarly situated lands in village Gajan

1. Whether the Reference Court was justified in determining the market value of the acquired lands at enhanced rates based on previous awards for adjacent villages for the same public project

2. Whether the impugned judgments and awards passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Modasa, suffer from any legal infirmity requiring interference under Section 54 of the Act

The court primarily applied Section 18 and Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, concerning the reference to court and appeals in proceedings for compensation

It relied on the principle of parity in land compensation, specifically citing precedents from the same High Court in First Appeal No. 4482 of 2024 (village Bajkot), First Appeal No. 2790 of 2023 (village Jhalodar), and First Appeal No. 2311 of 2023 (villages Moti Isrol and Umedpur)

These precedents establish that when lands are acquired for the same public purpose in the same vicinity, compensation should be consistent with the market value determined in lead matters/adjacent village cases

The Court observed that the Reference Court had based its valuation on Land Reference Cases Nos. 123 to 150 of 2017 (village Gajan), which pertained to the same highway project

The High Court noted that the State had already accepted and the Coordinate Benches had confirmed similar awards for neighboring villages like Bajkot, Moti Isrol, Umedpur, and Jivanpur, where the same valuation principles were applied

The Court found that since the lands in the present appeals were acquired for the very same public purpose and the underlying basis for compensation (the Gajan village award) had been upheld by both Coordinate and Division Benches, there was no reason to deviate from those findings

The court dismissed all First Appeals and vacated any interim relief. It ordered the Registry to return the Record and Proceedings to the lower court and directed the disbursement of the remaining compensation amount to the claimants upon identity verification