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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 4313

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sunita Agarwal, CJ, D.N. Ray, J
Sanjaybhai Manubhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Competent Authority, National Highway Authority Of India – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3720 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A.J. Yagnik, Tushar L. Chauhan
For the Respondents: Sanjay Udhwani, Ankit Shah, Nanavati & Co.

The 12% additional compensation under the land acquisition statute must be calculated on the total market value determined under the relevant section of the Act, which includes both the base market value and the mandated multiplication factor, rather than just the base market value alone.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 26 and 30(3) - Land acquisition - Additional compensation - Computation - Claimants sought addition of 12% compensation under Section 30(3) on market value including multiplication factor as per Section 26(2) - Court held that legislative intent behind Section 30(3) requiring 12% additional compensation on 'such market value' refers to the total market value determined under Section 26, which encompasses both the base market value under Section 26(1) and the multiplication factor applied under Section 26(2) - Denying the inclusion of the multiplication factor in the base for calculating additional compensation contradicts the statutory framework designed to offset inflation and price rise - Petitioners held entitled to interest under Section 80 on the unpaid portion of such additional compensation. (Paras 8, 14, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the exclusion of the multiplication factor from the base of the market value when calculating the 12% additional compensation under the land acquisition law. Despite the original award incorporating a multiplication factor into the market value calculation, the authorities restricted the 12% statutory additional compensation solely to the base market value.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the term 'market value' is a consolidated figure determined under Section 26, which includes both the component calculated under subsection (1) and the multiplier under subsection (2). Consequently, the 12% additional compensation must be calculated on this aggregate sum.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the statutory additional compensation of 12% per annum prescribed under the land acquisition law should be computed only on the base market value or on the total market value that includes the prescribed multiplication factor.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that 'market value' is a legal term defined to include the components specified in the statute. Since the multiplication factor is an inseparable part of determining the market value under the relevant section, the base for calculating the additional 12% compensation must include this factor to satisfy the legislative objective of mitigating hardships due to price appreciation.

Result: Petition partly allowed; authorities directed to recompute the additional compensation and pay statutory interest on the arrears.

Table of Content
1. grievance regarding non-application of section 30(3) benefits on total market value. (Para 1 , 2)
2. application of established precedent regarding statutory compensation calculation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. mandatory directive for award amendment and interest payments. (Para 8 , 9)

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)

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 / 05.08.2020.

2. The contention is that the award dated 19.03.2020 / 05.08.2020 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

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