[Cites 25, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Nagarbhai Chipkabhai Patel Through Its ... vs Competent Authority And Special Land ... on 27 February, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2740 of 2026
=============================================
NAGARBHAI CHIPKABHAI PATEL THROUGH ITS LEGAL HEIR
GAMANBHAI NAGARBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER
& ORS.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR.VEDANT RAJGURU WITH MS.AISHWARYA B. GUPTA AND
MR.MEHUL B. DHONDHE FOR MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1,10,11,12,13,14,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR TUSHAR L CHAUHAN(12449) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1,10,11,12,13,14,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
MR.SANJAY UDHWANI, ASST.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 27/02/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL)
1. Heard Mr. A.J.Yagnik, the learned advocate for the
petitioners, Mr.Sanjay Udhwani, the learned AGP appearing for the
State respondent No.1, Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, the learned
advocate for the respondent NHAI and Mr. Pradip Bhate, the
learned advocate for the respondent No.3.
2. In the present writ petition, 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
5. It is contended by Mr. A.J.Yagnik, the learned counsel 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 the awards in the present set of writ petitions have been
rendered sometime in the year 2021. All the petitioners herein
have approached this Court for the first time in the present writ
petitions filed in the end of December, 2025, agitating the issue of
denial of interest under Section 30(3) and the benefits of Second
and Third Schedule of the 2013 Act.
7. As regards the benefits under Section 30(3) of the 2013 Act,
this Court has awarded the said benefits to the petitioners in the
Special Civil Application No. 7561 of 2023 and other cognate
petitions decided on 23.12.2025. In the said group of petitions,
the question before this Court was, "whether the additional amount
of compensation (calculated @ 12% per annum) under Section
30(3) of the 2013 Act on the market value of the land determined
under Section 26 shall be computed on the multiplication Factor-2
as per sub-section(2) of Section 26 of the Act, 2013, applied on the
market value, determined as per sub-section(1) of Section 26 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
Act, 2013". We may note that in the facts of the said case, the
petitioners agitated denial of the benefits of sub-section(3) of
Section 30 on the additional market value determined by
application of multiplication Factor-2 under the directions issued
by this Court. However, the petitioners therein had received the
benefit of additional compensation of 12% on the base market value
determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 26(1) of
the 2013, Act, under the original award passed by the competent
authority under Section 3G (1) of the National Highways Act, 1956.
8. In that context, while reading the provisions of 2013 Act and
the interplay between the National Highways Act, 1956 and 2013
Act keeping in mind of the applicability of the First Schedule of the
2013 Act, in the matter of determination of compensation for the
lands acquired under the National Highways Act, this Court upheld
the claim of the petitioners for grant of the benefits of additional
compensation under Section 30(3) @ 12%, on the base market
value including multiplication Factor-2 determined under Section
26 of the 2013 Act. It was held therein that :-
"96. Keeping in mind all the above noted principles of statutory
interpretation, we have no reason to assign a different meaning to
the word "market value" than defined in Section 3(u) of the Act,
which would mean "the value of the land determined in accordance
with Section 26 of the Act, 2013". Section 26, as discussed
hereinbefore, provides different criterias for determination of
market value of land and Sub-Section (2) is included therein, which
provides for application of multiplication Factor 2 on the market
value of the land calculated as per Sub-Section (1). In the Scheme
of the Act, Section 28 refers to the "market value as determined
under Section 26" being the first factor in determining the amount
of compensation. Section 30(3) provides that in addition to the
"market value of the land provided under Section 26", the
Collector shall award an amount calculated @ 12% on "such
market value" for the period provided therein in every case.
97. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar, learned Additional Advocate
General, would argue that the phrase "such market value"
occurring in the third line of Sub-Section (3) of Section 30 of the
Act, 2013 is to be considered as "the market value determined
under Section 26(1) of Act, 2013 only". To deal with this
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
submission, at the cost of repetition, suffice it to note that there
has been a consistent view of the Courts that when the legislature
has used the same word or expression in different parts of the
same Section or statute, there is a presumption that such word or
expression is used in the same sense throughout. Where the
draftsman uses the same word or phrase in similar contexts, he
must be presumed to intend it in each place to bear the same
meaning. (Reference: House of Lords in Farrel Vs. Alexander 19)
98. The law is that the Court embarking upon interpretative
expedition shall identify the contextual use of the word or
expression and then determine its direction, avoiding collision with
inconsistency and repugnancy.
99. In Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, (5 th ed, 2003, Volume
2) the meaning of the word "such" is defined as "of the kind,
degree, or category previously specified or implied contextually; of
the same kind or degree as something previously specific or
implied contextually; of that kind; similar; of the character
previously specified by a preceding adjective, so; of the kind,
degree, category being or about to be specified."
100. Thus, the use of the word "such" as an adjective prefixed to
a noun is indicative of the draftsman's intention that he is
assigning the same meaning or characteristic to the noun as has
been previously indicated or that he is referring to something what
has been said before. This principle has all the more vigorous
application when two places, employing the same expression, at
the earlier place the expression having been defined or
characterised and at the latter place having been qualified by use
of word "such", are situated in close proximity (Reference:
Paragraph '43' Central Bank of India Vs. Ravindra and Others
[(2002) 1 SCC 369].
101. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the
meaning assigned to the expression "market value of the land
provided under Section 26 of the Act, 2013", occurring in the first
line of Sub-Section (3) of Section 30 of the Act, 2013 should
continue to be assigned to "market value" occurring in the third
line, where the said expression has been used qualified by the
adjective "such". In other words, the expression "market value"
qualified by the adjective "such" occurring in the third line shall
have to be assigned the same meaning characterized to the same
expression in the first line of Sub-Section (3) of Section 30 of the
same sentence. The Act defines "market value" to mean as the
"market value determined in accordance with Section 26 of the
Act, 2013". Thus, the expression "market value" occurring in
various Sections of the Act, 2013 is to be assigned the same
meaning as the "market value determined or provided under
Section 26". The expression "such market value" will also be
given the same meaning and cannot be assigned a different
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
meaning to the "market value" being the value determined in
accordance with Sub-Section (1) of Section 26 of the Act, 2013,
only. Such an interpretation would cause violence to the statute as
it would require us to add and read sub-section (1) not only in the
first line of Sub-Section (3) of Section 30, which qualifies the
expression "such market value" in the latter part of the said Sub-
Section, but would also require us to read Sub-Section (1) in
Section 3(u), which is the definition clause.
102. The contention of the learned Additional Advocate General
on the submission pertaining to the interpretation of the words
"such market value" occurring in Sub-Section (3) of Section 30 to
mean as the "market value determined under Sub-Section (1) of
Section 26 only" is liable to be rejected, accordingly.
103. Having reached at this stage, we find that Section 26 in the
Act, 2013 is a provision, which provides for different factors for
assessment and determination of the market value of the land,
acquired under the Act; Sub-Section (1) of Section 26 provides a
set of criterias for assessment of market value; Sub-Section (2) of
Section 26 provides for application of multiplication Factor 2 to the
calculation of the market value made under Sub-Section (1). The
multiplication Factor is provided in the First Schedule and as per
Item No.2 for rural area, the manner of determination of value is
"1.00 (One) to 2.00 (Two) based on the distance of project from
urban area, as may be notified by the appropriate Government.
The notification of the Central Government dated 09.02.2016
published in the Official Gazette provides that in case of rural
areas, the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied is
2.00 (Two). The multiplication Factor as per Sub-Section (2) of
Section 26 of the Act, 2013, is an additional factor conceived by the
legislature to be added to the market value determined under Sub-
Section (1) of Section 26 incorporated in the statute itself,
depending upon the location of the acquired land, as per the
notification of the appropriate Government.
104. Sub-Section (3) of Section 26 of the Act, 2013 in the opening
line, also refers to both Sub-Section (1) and Sub-Section (2) while
stating that in a case where the market value cannot be
determined under Sub-Section (1) or Sub-Section (2), for the
reasons provided therein, the State Government shall specify the
floor price as provided therein.
105. It is, thus, difficult for us to accept that the multiplication
Factor notified by the appropriate Government under the Scheme
of the Act, 2013, to be added in the market value of the land
determined under Sub-Section (1) of Section 26, as per Sub-
Section (2) of Section 26 is a part of "compensation package" and
is not included in the expression the "market value" of the land as
determined under Section 26 of the Act, 2013. The "market value"
of the land being the end product of different components of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
assessment and determination, cannot be confused with the
connotation or the word "compensation" under the Scheme of the
Act, 2013, which includes parameters other than the market value
of the land determined under Section 26, inasmuch as, it includes
the values of the assets attached to the land, the award amount in
accordance with the First and Second Schedules, the damages
computed, if any, under Section 28 and Solatium under Sub-
Section (1) of Section 30 of the Act, 2013.
106. It is further interesting to note that neither the damages, if
any, awarded under Section 28 are mentioned as one of the
components of "compensation package" in the First Schedule nor
there is a mention of the statutory amount @ 12% provided in
Section 30(3). The expression "amount of compensation" in Section
28 is inclusive of the award amount under the First Schedule along
with other parameters mentioned therein. This would further be
indicative of the intention of the legislature that the components of
"compensation package" provided in the First Schedule are not
exhaustive and the expression "compensation package" therein will
not control or govern the meaning of the word "compensation" or
"market value" in the Scheme of the enactment.
107. From the table extracted in the First Schedule, it may be
noted that it refers to certain details which the Collector has to
mention in the individual awards, such as the market value of the
land; value of the assets attached to land and building and
Solatium, while making of the final awards in the lands of rural
areas by application of multiplication Factor notified by the
appropriate Court. One of the main purpose of the First Schedule
is to provide the mechanism of working out the multiplication
Factor to be applied to the land in rural areas, and the said
purpose stood served with the notification of the appropriate
Government. The First Schedule cannot be given undue
importance to employ it for the purpose more than for which it has
been introduced by Sub-Section (2) of Section 30, so as to control
the meaning of the expression "market value" and "compensation"
in the entire enactment.
108. In the result, all the contentions made by the learned
Additional Advocate General to impress upon us that the additional
amount @ 12% can only be awarded on the "base market value"
assessed and determined as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 26 and
it cannot be computed on the multiplication Factor as provided in
Sub-Section (2) of Section 26 for determination of the market value
of the land, are liable to be turned down.
109. Moving further, we may note that the additional amount
payable under Section 30(3) of the Act, 2013 is neither an interest
nor solatium. It is an additional compensation designed to
compensate the owner of the land for the rise in price during the
pendency of the land acquisition proceedings. While interpreting
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
Section 23 (1A) of the Act, 1894, which is pari materia to Section
30(3) of the Act, 2013, it is held by the Apex Court in Assistant
Commissioner, Gadag Sub-Division, Gadag Vs. Mathapathi
Basavannewwa and Others [(1995) 6 SCC 355] that Section
23(1-A) was introduced by the legislature to mitigate the hardship
caused to the owners of the land and to offset the effect of inflation
and the rise in the value of properties, for the period commencing
from the date of Section 4(1) notification till the date of the award.
110. In cases where the publication of notification under Section
4(1) was by invoking power of urgency under Section 17(4) of the
Act, 1894 and possession has been taken before making of the
award, the additional amount @ 12% per annum is intended to be
paid as compensation from the date of taking possession till the
date of making of the award.
111. The Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Income
Tax, Faridabad Vs. Ghanshyam [(2009) 8 SCC 412] while dealing
with the question as to whether the amount of additional
compensation under Section 23 (1-A) of the Act, 1894 and interest
thereon would be taxable as income, has held that:
"30. The additional amount payable under Section 23(1-A)
of the 1894 Act is neither interest nor solatium. It is an
additional compensation designed to compensate the owner
of the land, for the rise in price during pendency of the land
acquisition proceedings. It is measure to offset the effect of
inflation and the continuous rise in the value of properties
(See State of T.N. v. L. Krishnan). Therefore, the amount
payable under Section 23 (1-A) of 1894 Act is an additional
compensation in respect to the acquisition and has to be
reckoned as part of the market value of the land.
31. Sub-Section (1-A) of Section 23 was introduced by the
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984. It provides that in
every case the court shall award an amount as additional
compensation at the rate of 12% per annum on the market
value of the land for the period commencing on and from the
date of publication of the notification under Section 4(1) to
the date of the award of the Collector or to the date of taking
possession of the land, whichever is earlier. In other words
sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 provides for additional
compensation. The said sub-section takes care of increase in
the value at the rate of 12% per annum."
112. The market value of the land determined under Section 26
as on the date of the notification under Section 11 of the Act, 2013
(Section 3A of the National Highways Act, 1956 for the present
case) is static. The additional compensation @12% is designed to
compensate the owners for the increase in the value of the land
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
during the pendency of the land acquisition proceedings and is to
be reckoned as a part of the market value of the land. The
additional amount @ 12%, thus, has to be computed combining all
the factors for assessment and determination of the market value
under Section 26 of the Act, 2013.
113. In the instant case, the multiplication Factor 2 for the lands
of the rural area was required to be included in the original award
declared sometime in the year 2017 as for providing just and fair
market value of the land to the land owners as on the date of the
notification under Section 3A of the Act, 1956. The additional
compensation under Sub-Section (3) of Section 30 of the Act, 2013
@ 12% per annum was required to be computed on the total
amount of the market value of the land determined under Section
26, by including multiplication Factor 2. Because of the delay in
the notification by the Central Government as per the first
schedule, which came in the year 2016 and the subsequent
approach of the State Government in denying the benefit of the
said notification to the lands lying in the rural area in the State,
this Court had to intervene on the question of application of the
appropriate multiplication factor for the lands in question."
9. It was, thus, concluded in paragraph No. '115' as under :-
"115. With the above, we hold that the petitioners herein are
entitled to the additional compensation (@ 12% per annum) to be
computed on the market value by application of multiplication
Factor 2 as per Section 26 of the Act, 2013, from the date of
Section 3A notification under the Act, 1956 till the date of making
of the original award (in the year 2017), inasmuch as, in the instant
case, the possession of the lands in question had been taken after
declaration of the award in the year 2017 and payment of
compensation thereunder. The terminal point under Section 30(3),
being the date of the award (original award), is applicable in this
case being earlier in point of time to the date of taking possession."
10. On the issue of award of interest under Section 80, it was
further held in paragraph No. '116' as under :-
"116. As regards the interest under Section 80 of the Act, 2013,
the same would be payable to the land owners on the additional
amount to be determined by the competent authority, as per Sub-
Section (3) of Section 30 of additional compensation which is to be
computed on the difference of the market value determined by
application of multiplication Factor 2, in the amended awards
passed in the year 2021. As the additional compensation @ 12 %
per annum is considered to be a factor designed to compensate the
owners of the land for the rise in the land prices during the
pendency of the land acquisition proceedings, it would be treated
as the part of the compensation, which was required to be
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
included in the final (original) award passed by the Special Land
Acquisition Officer in the year 2017. As there has been non-
payment of the full compensation amount as per the Scheme of
the Act, 2013, the unpaid amount of the compensation would carry
interest @ 9% & 15% under the Scheme of Section 80 of the Act,
2013, from the date of taking possession of the land in question till
the date of deposits or payments made under the amended award
passed by application of multiplication Factor 2. It is clarified that
we have confined the liability of interest under Section 80 uptil the
date of making of the deposits or payments under the amended
award, taking into account that there has been delays in filing the
Writ Petitions in this bunch, seeking for the benefit of Section 30(3)
which was not included in the amended awards passed sometime
after 2021."
11. There can be no dispute about the entitlement of the land
owners herein to the benefit of 12% additional compensation under
sub-section(3) of Section 30 on the market value determined under
Section 26 of the 2013 Act.
12. On a query made by the Court, Mr. Maulik G. Nanavati, the
learned counsel for the NHAI would submit that there is no
challenge to the aforesaid decision and the same is holding the
field as on date.
13. It would also be pertinent to note here that in the awards-in-
question passed in the year 2021, the competent authority had not
included the benefits of Section 30(3) on the premise that the
determination made by the Land Valuation Committee included the
statutory benefits of additional compensation. We do not find any
reason to deliberate on the said issue as it is wholly misconcieved.
14. In view of the above, we have no hesitation in holding that
the petitioners herein are entitled for the benefit of additional
compensation @ 12% on the market value determined by the
competent authority under the award impugned. It is provided that
while making computation for the additional compensation of 12%,
the competent authority would be required to take into
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
consideration the market value determined under Section 26 of the
Act, 2013, which would include both the market value determined
under sub-section(1) as well as sub-section(2) of Section 26,
inasmuch as, the case of the petitioners herein is that the
additional compensation @ 12% has not been awarded even on the
base market value (market value under Section 26(1) of the Act,
2013).
15. The prayer made in the writ petitions for grant of benefit of
Section 30(3) and the statutory interest under Section 80 on the
unpaid amount of additional interest, is hereby granted. Since the
statutory benefits, as admissible to the petitioners on the date of
making of the award had been denied, the petitioners are also held
entitled to interest under Section 80 of the Act, 2013 on the
amount of the additional interest, calculated on the market value
determined under the impugned award.
16. However, looking to the fact that the petitioners have
approached this Court after a gap of almost four years to seek the
statutory benefits under Section 30(3), we find it fit and proper to
provide that the statutory interest under Section 80 shall be
calculated at the rate of 9% and 15% for a period of three years
from the date of making of the award.
17. The competent authority shall be required to pass the award
in accordance with the above directions within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
18. However, for the prayer made in the writ petition about the
grant of benefits as contained in Second and Third Schedule of the
2013 Act, suffice it to say that there is no whisper in the writ
petitions about any steps taken by the petitioners or any grievances
raised before any of the authorities at any point of time during the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2740/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/02/2026
undefined
course of acquisition, that they are entitled for the benefit of
Schedule-II and Schedule-III of the 2013 Act, and it was illegally
denied. The acquisitions in the present cases are of the year 2015-
2016, which came to their logical end much after the notification
dated 28.08.2015 issued by the Central Government whereby the
benefits under Schedule II and Schedule III of the 2013 Act have
been made applicable to the acquisitions made under the National
Highways Act.
19. In our considered opinion, this is not a fit case to grant such
benefits because of the delay and laches on the part of the
petitioners and on the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. The
further prayers made in the writ petitions in that regard are,
therefore, rejected.
20. With the above, the present writ petition is partly allowed.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
SAHIL S. RANGER
