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) 968

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Sunita Agarwal, C.J., D.N.Ray, J.
Karsanbhai Bhanabhai Patel & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Competent Authority & Ors. – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 5316 of 2026
Decided On : 16-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr AJ Yagnik, Mr Tushar L Chauhan
For the Respondent: Ms Hetal Patel, Agp, Mr Pradip D Bhate, Mr Maulik G Nanavati For Nanavati & Co.

The 12% additional compensation prescribed by statute must be calculated on the total market value, including the mandated multiplication factor. This ensures relief against inflationary trends, and interest is payable on any unpaid portion of such compensation resulting from its initial exclusion.

Headnote:(A) Land Acquisition Act - Sections 26 and 30(3) - Additional compensation - Whether additional compensation at 12% per annum is payable on the market value inclusive of multiplication factor - Interpretation of market value - Held, the market value determined under relevant provisions includes the multiplication factor, and the legislative intent is to compensate for inflation by applying the additional 12% on the total determined market value. (Paras 96, 101, 112)

(B) Interest - Section 80 - Calculation of interest on unpaid additional compensation - Where statutory benefits were denied in initial awards, interest is payable on the component of additional compensation from the date of the award. (Para 116)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the exclusion of the multiplication factor from the calculation of additional 12% statutory compensation granted for acquired lands. Authorities had computed the base market value correctly but denied the application of the multiplication factor when calculating the additional compensation, leading to the petitioners approaching the court for the differential amount and interest.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that additional compensation is a remedial measure intended to offset inflationary trends during acquisition proceedings. The governing legislation defines market value in a manner that encompasses the multiplication factor. Restricting the computation to the base value would undermine the intent of the statute. Consequently, the court held that the 12% additional compensation must be calculated on the adjusted market value, with applicable statutory interest allowed on the unpaid segments. Claims for additional rehabilitation benefits were dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches.

Issues: Whether the 12% additional compensation under the statute should be computed on the base market value alone or on the total market value inclusive of the multiplication factor; and whether statutory interest is payable on the resulting unpaid amount.

Ratio Decidendi: The expression 'market value' within the statute includes the multiplication factor. Because the purpose of additional compensation is to mitigate the effects of inflation and property value appreciation during the pendency of proceedings, it must be applied to the total determined market value. Calculating it otherwise would be inconsistent with the legislative purpose of providing just and fair compensation.

Result: Partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners contest the exclusion of statutory section 30(3) benefits on the full market value. (Para 1 , 2)
2. court reiterates binding precedent that additional compensation applies to market value inclusive of multiplication factors. (Para 3 , 4 , 7)
3. respondent admits that previous court judgments are binding and undisputed. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court directs authority to pay additional compensation and statutory interest, rejecting secondary schedule claims due to laches. (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 01.06.2023.

2. The contention is that the award dated 01.06.2023 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, whereb

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