Facts
The petitioners’ lands were acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956. Awards were passed in 2021
Source reference: para 6While 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
Source reference: para 2-3The 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
Source reference: para 3-4Issues
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
Source reference: para 7-82. Whether the petitioners are entitled to interest under Section 80 of the 2013 Act for the unpaid portion of the compensation
Source reference: para 103. 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
Source reference: para 18-19Law 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
Source reference: para 8It relied on the definition of "market value" in Section 3(u) of the 2013 Act
Source reference: para 8, citing para 96 of a previous judgmentIt further applied Section 80 of the 2013 Act concerning interest on unpaid compensation
Source reference: para 10Precedentially, 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
Source reference: para 5It also adhered to the principles of "estoppel and acquiescence" to deny stale claims
Source reference: para 19Reasoning
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
Source reference: para 8, citing previous HC decisionConsequently, 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
Source reference: para 8, citing para 111-112Regarding 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
Source reference: para 10However, 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
Source reference: para 18-19Holding
It held that the petitioners are entitled to 12% additional compensation under Section 30(3) calculated on the market value including Factor-2
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
Source reference: para 16The prayers for benefits under the Second and Third Schedules were rejected on the grounds of estoppel and laches
Source reference: para 19The competent authority was directed to pass the amended award within six weeks
Source reference: para 17Original Court PDF
HARISHBHAI MANGUBHAI HALPATIvsCOMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in