IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6406 of 2026 ======================================

PATEL NARENDRABHAI JORABHAI & ORS.

Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

======================================

Appearance:

MS ARTI INAMDAR(1377) for the Petitioner(s) No.

1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MS SHRILRAJA J INAMDAR(12053) for the Petitioner(s) No.

1,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s) No. 3,4 MS HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent No.2 ======================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.

JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY Date : 04/05/2026

ORAL ORDER

(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

28.09.2020.

2. Ms. Shrilraja Inamdar, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that petitioners Nos.4, 6, 10, 11 and 15 be deleted from the array of parties with the liberty to file a fresh petition with better particulars.

3. The request made is hereby accepted. The petitioners Nos.4, 6, 10, 11 and 15 be deleted from the array of parties. Correction/incorporation shall be carried out during the course of the day.

4. It is pointed out by Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, learned advocate for NHAI that apart from petitioners Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14 and 16, there are co-owners of the land in question, who are not impleaded herein.

5. The contention is that the award dated 28.09.2020 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 compensa