Relying on previous land acquisition awards older than five years for market value determination is unsafe.

The land of the Appellants in village Mandali, Taluka Kheralu, District Mehsana, was acquired for the public purpose of the Dharoi Canal project.

The Section 4 notification under the Land Acquisition Act ("the Act") was published on 03.09.1998, followed by a Section 6 notification on 09.04.1999.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer (SLAO) awarded compensation of ₹3.70/sq. mtr for irrigated land and ₹3.00/sq. mtr for non-irrigated land.

On reference under Section 18 of the Act, the Reference Court, Mehsana, enhanced the compensation by ₹18.30/sq. mtr based on an exemplar from village Nortol, where the Section 4 notification was dated 02.01.1986—a 13-year gap.

The claimants appealed for further enhancement.

1. Whether the Reference Court erred in law by relying on a previous land acquisition judgment (village Nortol) as an exemplar when there was a 13-year gap between the notifications.

2. Whether the claimants are entitled to enhanced compensation based on the market value determined for comparable lands in the adjoining village of Khatasana/Lunva for the same project.

The court primarily applied the principle from General Manager, ONGC v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel, (2008) 14 SCC 745, which establishes that it is unsafe to rely on a previous acquisition for determining market value if the gap between the Section 4 notifications exceeds five years.

It also relied on Narendra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2017) INSC 682 and Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2016) 4 SCC 544, which mandate that courts must award "just and fair compensation" based on true market value regardless of the specific amount claimed by the landowner.

Section 25 of the Act was cited to clarify that there is no maximum cap on compensation, only a minimum limit corresponding to the SLAO's award.

The Court observed that the Reference Court committed a serious error in relying on a 13-year-old notification, violating the "safe gap" rule of 4–5 years established in Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel.

The High Court noted that the land in village Mandali was acquired for the same project and during the same period as village Lunva.

Following the "domino effect" logic, the Court found that the compensation for Mandali should be consistent with the enhancement granted for Lunva in First Appeal No. 1627 of 2013.

In that matter, the Court had relied on a Division Bench judgment concerning village Khatasana (an adjoining village), fixing the market value for irrigated land at ₹134.10 per sq. mtr after applying relevant benchmarks.

Since the State had already accepted the Lunva judgment, the Court held that the same market rate must apply to the present appeals to ensure parity and fairness.

It held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of ₹134.10 per sq. mtr (inclusive of amounts already awarded by the SLAO and Reference Court).

The Court directed the respondents to deposit the enhanced amount (an additional ₹112/- per sq. mtr) along with interest and statutory benefits within twelve weeks.