Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Guj) 809

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J., D.N. RAY, J.
Harishbhai Mangubhai Halpati & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Competent Authority And Special Land Acquisition Officer & Ors. - Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 3620 of 2026 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3622 of 2026 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3631 of 2026 With R/Special Civil Application No. 3634 of 2026
Decided On : 16-03-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Aishwarya Gupta For Mr. A.J. Yagnik, Mr. Tushar L. Chauhan.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sanjay Udhwani, AGP, Mr. Pradip D. Bhate, Ms. Khyati Bhati For Nanavati & Co.

The 12% additional compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is to be computed on the total market value, including mandatory multiplication factors, as it constitutes a restorative component for inflationary loss rather than standard interest.

Headnote:(A) Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 26 and 30(3) - National Highways Act, 1956 - Determination of compensation - Additional compensation @ 12% per annum to be calculated on the base market value including multiplication factor - Such benefit is neither interest nor solatium but part of market value to mitigate impact of inflation - The expression “market value” in Section 30(3) incorporates the multiplication factor as it is a component of the determination of the value under Section 26. (Paras 101, 103, 109, 112)

(B) Interest - Section 80 of 2013 Act - Payment of interest on unpaid additional compensation - Where there is delay in seeking statutory benefits, interest may be limited to a reasonable period commensurate with the filing of the petition - Principle of estoppel and acquiescence applied to reject claims regarding secondary rehabilitation and resettlement benefits not previously agitated. (Paras 10, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners sought statutory benefits including additional compensation and rehabilitation amenities following land acquisition for infrastructure projects. Although awards were passed, the authority failed to compute the 12% additional compensation on the total market value inclusive of the multiplication factor. The petitions were filed after a significant lapse of time from the date of the original awards.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the additional compensation under Section 30(3) is an integral part of the market value intended to offset inflation and must be computed on the final value arrived at after applying the multiplication factor. Interest under Section 80 is applicable to the differential amount. However, claims for additional rehabilitation and resettlement benefits were rejected due to the petitioners' failure to raise such grievances during the acquisition proceedings, coupled with significant delay and laches.

Issues: Whether the 12% additional compensation under the relevant statute must include the multiplication factor in the base market value and whether statutory interest is payable on the differential sum.

Ratio Decidendi: The term “market value” denotes the total value as determined under Section 26, inclusive of all components and multiplication factors defined therein. As the legislative intent behind the 12% additional amount is to compensate for price inflation over the duration of proceedings, it must be calculated on the full market value determined at the onset. Conversely, secondary claims for rehabilitation amenities are barred when not asserted contemporaneously with the acquisition process.

Result: Partly allowed.

Table of Content
1. petitioners seek statutory compensation benefits under the 2013 land acquisition act for land acquired under the national highways act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. section 30(3) additional compensation of 12% must be calculated on the total market value including the multiplication factor-2. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 13 , 14)
3. the respondent confirms there is no challenge to the court's settled position on statutory compensation. (Para 12)
4. court directs updated awards granting section 30(3) benefits and section 80 interest, limited by the delay in filing. (Para 15 , 16 , 17)
5. benefits regarding second and third schedules are rejected due to unreasonable delay, laches, and lack of prior representation. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)

JUDGMENT :

SUNITA AGARWAL, C.J.

Heard Ms.Aishwarya Gupta, learned advocate for Mr. A.J.Yagnik, the learned advocate for the petitioners, Mr.Sanjay Udhwani, the learned AGP appearing for the State respondent No.1, Ms.Khyati Bhati, learned advocate for Mr.Maulik G. Nanavati, the learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and Mr. Pradip Bhate, 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 the Fourth Schedule of the 2013, Act.

5. It is contended by Ms.Aishwarya Gupta, learned advocate for Mr. A.J. Yagnik, the learned advocate for the petitioners that the National Highways Act, 1956 is one of the enactments enumerated in the Fourth Schedule to the 2013 Act. The result is that by virtue of the notification dated 28.08.2015 issued by the Central Government of India, which was given due attention by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another v/s. Tarsem Singh and Others [(2019) 9 SCC 304] and received approval in the case of NHAI v/s. P. Nagaraju [(2022) 15 SCC 1], the petitioners are entitled for all the statutory benefits of 2013 Act including the additional compensation payable under Section 30(3) of the Act, 2013.

6. Taking note of all these submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset, we may say that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Guj) 809

The 12% additional compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is to be computed on the total market value, including mandatory multiplication factors, as it constitutes a restorative component for inflationary loss rather than standard interest.

Cases Referred (4)