Uniform ₹76-per-square-metre compensation applies to similarly situated irrigated and non-irrigated lands in adjacent villages.

The appellants’ agricultural lands situated at village Savpura, Taluka Tharad, District Banaskantha, were acquired by the State for the Narmada Project under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

In First Appeal Nos. 5337, 5333, 5336, 5773 and 5774 of 2019, notifications under Sections 4 and 6 were issued on 29 April 1997 and 26 September 1997, respectively.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation at Rs.2.06 per sq. metre, while the Reference Court granted an additional Rs.15.54 per sq. metre.

In First Appeal No.5775 of 2019, the relevant notifications were issued on 10 March 1997 and 10 July 1997.

The Special Land Acquisition Officer awarded Rs.3.10 per sq. metre for irrigated land and Rs.2.06 per sq. metre for non-irrigated land.

The Reference Court awarded an additional Rs.15.54 per sq. metre.

The appeals arose from the common judgments and awards dated 28 October 2013 and 31 December 2014 passed by the Reference Courts.

Whether the claimants were entitled to have the market value of the acquired lands in village Savpura reassessed at Rs.76 per sq. metre by applying the valuation determined for lands in the adjoining village of Bhapi?

Whether the enhanced compensation was payable uniformly for irrigated and non-irrigated lands, inclusive of amounts already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court, together with statutory benefits?

What consequential directions were required concerning deposit, disbursement and interest on the enhanced compensation?

The Court applied the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, particularly Sections 4 and 6 governing acquisition notifications and Section 18 governing references against the award of the Special Land Acquisition Officer.

The governing principle is that market value must be determined as on the relevant date under Section 4, and comparable awards relating to lands in the same or adjoining villages, acquired for the same purpose and around the same time, may constitute reliable evidence of market value.

The Court relied upon the principles referred to in Mohammad Raofuddin v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2009) 14 SCC 367, and General Manager, ONGC Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Jivanbhai Patel & Anr., 2008 (4) GLR 2833, concerning the use of comparable acquisitions and neighbouring lands for determining fair compensation.

It also followed the valuation affirmed in First Appeal No.701 of 2017 and the Coordinate Bench decision concerning village Bhapi, under which the market value for comparable lands was fixed at Rs.76 per sq. metre.

The Court found that the Section 4 notifications for Savpura and Bhapi were issued within a short interval, that both acquisitions were undertaken for the Narmada canal project, and that the villages were geographically adjacent with comparable land characteristics.

The valuation of Rs.76 per sq. metre had been judicially determined for comparable lands and the State had accepted that determination without challenge or had paid the compensation pursuant to it.

The Court therefore treated the Bhapi valuation as the best available indicator of Savpura’s market value.

It further noted that the precedent had applied the valuation uniformly to irrigated and non-irrigated lands, and held that there was no factual or legal basis to differentiate the two categories in the present appeals.

Accordingly, the Court substituted the lower valuation adopted by the Reference Courts with a total market value of Rs.76 per sq. metre, while preserving the claimants’ entitlement to statutory benefits.

The claimants were held entitled to total compensation calculated at Rs.76 per sq. metre for both irrigated and non-irrigated lands, inclusive of compensation already awarded by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and the Reference Court, together with all statutory benefits.

The State was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within eight weeks.

The Reference Court was directed to disburse the amount after deducting applicable court fees and after verification of identity, title and entitlement, along with applicable interest; however, the claimants were expressly denied interest for the delayed period.

The pending civil applications were disposed of as having become infructuous.