The date for determining market value of land under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is the date of issuance of Notification under Section 11, not a fixed earlier date.

JUDGMENT

MANMOHAN, J.

1. The present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment and final order dated 21st August, 2024 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No. 20392 of 2023.

2. Ms. Aastha Mehta, learned counsel for the Appellant stated that the High Court had erroneously held that the date for determination of market value of yet to be acquired He-0-11-41 sq. meters land of Survey No.119 shall be 01st January, 2014 i.e., the date of commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'RFCTLARR Act, 2013') instead of the date on which acquisition notification is issued as prescribed in proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

3. She stated that the Appellant is the owner of Revenue Block No.119 (new Revenue Block No.126), situated at village Moje Sarkuva, Taluka Vyara, District Tapi, measuring He-0-36-87 sq. meters (total area). She further stated that out of this land, an area measuring He-0-17-84 sq. meters had been acquired earlier for the purpose of constructing the Ukai High Level Cantor Canal. She, however, emphasised that an additional portion of He-0-11-41 sq. meters had been utilized without carrying out any acquisition proceeding or payment of compensation.

4. She stated that the High Court directed the State of Gujarat to file an affidavit regarding the alleged utilization of the land. Pursuant to the said direction, the Executive Engineer, Ukai Dam Division-1 filed an affidavit admitting that He-0-11-41 sq. meters of Appellant?s land had been utilized for construction of canal without any legal acquisition or payment of compensation.

5. She submitted that the High Court failed to take into account

Section 26(1) of the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013 especially its proviso which

reads as under:-

“Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be the date on which the notification has been issued under Section 11”.

6. She submitted that since the acquisition process for He-0-11-41 sq. meters of land is yet to commence, the compensation amount can be determined only when there is Section 11 Notification qua the said land. According to her, there is no discretion given in the statute for the purpose of deciding the date of compensation. In support of her submission, she relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ-C No.30088 of 2022.

7. Learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Gujarat candidly admitted that the acquiring body namely, the Executive Engineer, Ukai Division-1 at Ukai Dam has till date not been able to submit the proposal for acquisition of He-0-11-41 sq. meters on the online portal known as “PM Gati Shaki Portal” due to a technical error. She assured this Court that the process of acquisition would be commenced as soon as the technical error is resolved.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that the issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is the interpretation of proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 in the context of the date that is relevant for determining the market value of the land being acquired.

9. This Court is of the view that the said provision lays down the methodology for computing the market value of the land on the date of the acquisition notification. The use of the word „shall? in Section 26(1) proviso is reflective of the legislative mandate that Section 11 Notification is the date for determination of the compensation. 10. This Court has no doubt that the legislative intent is to ensure that the land owners receive fair compensation reflective of the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition. By fixing the date of 01st January, 2014 as the date for determination of market value, the impugned order deprives the Appellant of compensation at the 2023 rates, which must be considerably higher.

1