Section 30(3) additional compensation must be computed on market value inclusive of the statutory multiplication factor.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the 2013 Act must be computed on the market value after applying the multiplication Factor-2

The court held

It held that the petitioners are entitled to 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) calculated on the market value including Factor-2

It also directed

It directed the payment of interest under Section 80 on the unpaid additional compensation amount, but limited the interest calculation to a period of three years from the date of the award due to the petitioners' delay in filing

The prayers for benefits under the Second and Third Schedules were rejected on the grounds of estoppel and laches

The competent authority was directed to pass the amended award within six weeks

01Facts

The petitioners’ lands were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. Awards were passed in 2021

¶ 6

While the competent authority applied "multiplication Factor-2" to determine market value under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the "2013 Act"), it denied the 12% additional compensation provided under Section 30(3) of the same Act

¶ 2-3

The petitioners approached the High Court in January 2026 seeking: (i) the 12% additional compensation calculated on the market value (including Factor-2); (ii) statutory interest under Section 80 of the 2013 Act; and (iii) rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Second and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act

¶ 3-4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the 2013 Act must be computed on the market value after applying the multiplication Factor-2

¶ 7-8

ii.2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest under Section 80 of the 2013 Act for the unpaid portion of the compensation

¶ 10

iii.3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement benefits under the Second and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act despite a delay of nearly four years in filing the petition

¶ 18-19

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 26 of the 2013 Act regarding the determination of market value and Section 30(3) regarding additional compensation @ 12% per annum

¶ 8

It relied on the definition of "market value" in Section 3(u) of the 2013 Act

¶ 8, citing para 96 of a previous judgment

It further applied Section 80 of the 2013 Act concerning interest on unpaid compensation

¶ 10

Precedentially, the court followed Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019) and NHAI v. P. Nagaraju (2022) regarding the applicability of 2013 Act benefits to National Highways Act acquisitions

¶ 5

It also adhered to the principles of "estoppel and acquiescence" to deny stale claims

¶ 19

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 3 Section 11 Section 26 Section 28 Section 30 Section 80

04Reasoning

The court reasoned that "market value" under Section 3(u) and Section 26 is a composite value that includes the multiplication Factor-2 for rural areas

¶ 8, citing previous HC decision

Consequently, the 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) must be calculated on this total value, not just the base market value, to fulfill the legislative intent of offsetting inflation during acquisition proceedings

¶ 8, citing para 111-112

Regarding interest, the court held that since the full compensation mandated by the 2013 Act was not paid at the time of the award, Section 80 interest (9% and 15%) is triggered

¶ 10

However, the court found the claim for Schedule II and III benefits barred by delay and laches, noting that the petitioners failed to raise these grievances during the acquisition process and only approached the court four years after the award

¶ 18-19