State cannot selectively challenge compensation awards after accepting comparable awards for similarly situated landowners.

For the purpose of extending the Narmada Canal, lands situated at Village Kaniyel, Taluka Daskroi, District Ahmedabad, were acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The Section 4 notification was published on 28 November 2008. The Special Land Acquisition Officer determined compensation at Rs.14.98 per sq. mtr. in LAQ No.3 of 2008 by award dated 28 February 2011

The Reference Court, by a common judgment in LAR Nos.90 to 94 of 2012, awarded total compensation of Rs.125 per sq. mtr., thereby granting additional compensation of Rs.111 per sq. mtr. along with statutory benefits

The State preferred the connected first appeals under Section 54 of the Act.

The Reference Court had relied on the judgment in LAR No.65 of 2011 concerning Village Barmuwada, where compensation of Rs.125 per sq. mtr. had been awarded for land acquired for the same canal project pursuant to a Section 4 notification dated 24 October 2008

1. Whether the Reference Court was justified in relying on the award concerning Village Barmuwada to determine the market value of lands acquired in Village Kaniyel, despite the State’s contention that the villages were 28–32 kilometres apart?

2. Whether the connected appeals having a claim value of Rs.5,00,000 or less were liable to be dismissed in view of the State Government Resolution dated 25 October 2016?

3. Whether the State could challenge the compensation awarded to the present claimants after accepting and implementing the award in the comparable Barmuwada acquisition?

The Court applied Sections 4, 6 and 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, governing acquisition proceedings, references for determination of compensation and appeals against awards of the Reference Court

It applied the principle that an earlier award may serve as a comparable exemplar for determining market value where the acquisitions are proximate in time, concern lands with comparable characteristics, and relate to the same public purpose

The Court also relied on the State Government Resolution dated 25 October 2016, under which the State had adopted a policy of withdrawing appeals valued at Rs.5,00,000 or less

Further, relying on Shivappa Etc. Etc. v. Chief Engineer and Others, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 312, the Court held that the State cannot adopt a discriminatory “pick and choose” approach by accepting a Reference Court award for some landowners while challenging the same basis of compensation for similarly situated landowners

The Court found that the Barmuwada acquisition was a reliable comparable because the Section 4 notifications were issued within approximately one month of each other—24 October 2008 for Barmuwada and 28 November 2008 for Kaniyel—and both acquisitions were for extending the Narmada Canal

Although the State relied on the alleged distance of 28–32 kilometres, its own witness admitted in cross-examination that Kaniyel and Barmuwada were adjoining villages with common boundaries, that the same canal passed through both villages, and that their lands had identical viability, potentiality and fertility

These admissions substantially negated the State’s objection regarding geographical dissimilarity.

The Court also noted that the State had accepted the Barmuwada award and paid the compensation, making it impermissible to treat similarly placed Kaniyel landowners differently

Independently, three of the connected appeals had claim values not exceeding Rs.5,00,000 and were liable to dismissal under the State’s own litigation policy

The Court dismissed all four connected appeals as meritless

It directed the Registry to maintain a copy of the judgment in the connected appeals and ordered that the record and proceedings be returned to the concerned court.

The Reference Court was directed to disburse the deposited compensation, after deduction of court fees, to the claimants after due verification of their identity and entitlement, along with applicable interest