SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Guj) 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N.RAY, J.
Dayalbhai Chhaganbhai Patel & Ors. - Petitioners 
Versus 
Competent Authority, National Highway Authority Of India And Deputy Collector, Navsari (Expressway) & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 3260 Of 2026 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3263 Of 2026 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3264 Of 2026 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3271 Of 2026 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3276 Of 2026 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3278 Of 2026 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3361 Of 2026 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3425 Of 2026
Decided On : 12-03-2026 

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr A.J. Yagnik, Tushar L. Chauhan.
For the Respondents: Ms. Hetal Patel, Assistant Government Pleader, Mr Ankit Shah, Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati for Nanavati & Co.

Entitlement to additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Act, 2013 must include multiplication factor in determining market value.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 26 and 30(3) - Determination of market value and entitlement to additional compensation - The petitioners challenged the denial of additional compensation @ 12% on market value calculated under multiplication factor 2 as per Section 26(2) of the Act 2013 - Court affirmed entitlement to additional compensation on market value determined under Section 26, rejecting the view that it should apply only to Section 26(1) market value. (Paras 11, 14, 115)

(B) Government Notification - Notification dated 28.08.2015 allowing application of First, Second, and Third Schedules of the 2013 Act concerning land acquisition under National Highways Act, upheld. (Paras 5, 18)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought statutory benefits for lands acquired under the National Highways Act, claiming entitlement to additional compensation under Section 30(3) of the Act, 2013, which was denied in previous awards. The market value had been incorrectly calculated, as per Section 30(3) of the Act, only on the base market value instead of including the multiplication factor.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the calculation of market value must include the multiplication factor and that the additional compensation under Section 30(3) is required to be calculated on the total market value inclusive of that factor. Court directed that the competent authority should compute the additional compensation considering the multiplying factor.

Issues: The main issue was whether additional compensation should be computed on the full market value with a multiplication factor or solely on the base market value.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the statute intends for the additional compensation to apply to the entire assessed market value, including the multiplication factor 2, reaffirming the need for consistent interpretations of statutory terms across sections.

Result: The petitioners are entitled to the additional compensation @ 12% to be computed on the full market value and for interest under Section 80 of the Act for unpaid amounts.

Table of Content
1. denial of additional compensation under the act. (Para 1 , 2)
2. claim for statutory benefits under section 30(3). (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. court’s consideration of past rulings. (Para 6 , 7)
4. clarification on the interpretation of market value. (Para 8 , 9)

ORDER :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

1. The petitioners herein are aggrieved by non-award of benefit of Section 30 sub-section (3) of the the RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT , 2013 (for short, the Act’ 2013”), on the market value computed by application of the multiplication factor 2, which was granted vide award dated 19.03.2020 / 20.03.2020 in the petition concerned.

2. The contention is that the award dated 19.03.2020 / 20.03.2020 in the petition concerned with respect to the lands in question though determined market value by application of multiplication market value under Section 26(2) of the Act’ 2013 and other statutory benefits, but while granting benefits of additional compensation @12% under Section 30(3) of the Act’ 2013, the market value computed under Section 26(1) has only been taken into consideration, terming the same as the base market value.

3. The issue pertaining to the grant of benefit of additional compensation @ 12% on multiplication factor 2, i.e. the market value computed under Section 26(2) of the Act’ 2013 has been set at rest with the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.7561 of 2023 and other cognate matters decided on 23.12.2025.

4. Taking note of the said decision dated 23.12.2025, in a latter judgment and order dated 26.02.2026 in a bunch of writ petition leading being Special Civil Application No.2324 of 2026, the following order was passed:-

“Heard Mr. A.J.Yagnik, the learned advocate for the petitioners, Ms. Maithili Mehta, the learned AGP appearing for the State respondent No.1, Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and Mr. Ankit Shah, the learned advocate for the respondent No.3, in all the petitions.

2. In the present set of writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking for the benefits of statutory benefits of additional compensation @ 12% on the market value of the land provided under Section 30(3) of the RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT , 2013 (in short as ‘the 2013 Act’) for the period commending from the date of the preliminary notification published under Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956, till the date of the award or the date of taking possession of the land, whichever is earlier, as per the scheme of the said provision.

3. The petitioners would submit that though while making determination of the market value in accordance with Section 26 of the 2013 Act, multiplication Factor-2 was applied with respect to the land-in-question under the award, however, the benefits of the additional compensation as payable under Section 30(3) of the Act, 2013 on the total amount of the market value (including multiplication Factor-2) has not been awarded to the petitioners. The further prayer made in the writ petition is to award interest under Section 80 of the Act, 2013 on the unpaid amount, which was required to be included in the impugned award.

4. The petitioners would also pray for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of Schedule-II with regard to re-habilitation and re-settlement under the 2013 Act in light of the directives and guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, appended as Annexure-’A’ to the writ petitions. The further prayer is to extend the benefits of Schedule-III with regard to infrastructural amenities, based on the notification dated 28.08.2015 issued by the Government of India, whereby the First, Second and Third Schedule of the 2013 Act have been made applicable with respect to the acquisition made under the enactments enumerated in t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top