[Cites 29, Cited by 0]
Gujarat High Court
Dayalbhai Chhaganbhai Patel vs Competent Authority, National Highway ... on 12 March, 2026
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3260 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3263 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3264 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3271 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3276 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3278 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3361 of 2026
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3425 of 2026
==========================================================
DAYALBHAI CHHAGANBHAI PATEL & ORS.
Versus
COMPETENT AUTHORITY, NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND
DEPUTY COLLECTOR,NAVSARI (EXPRESSWAY) & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR AJ YAGNIK(1372) for the Petitioners
TUSHAR L CHAUHAN(12449) for the Petitioners
MS. HETAL PATEL, ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
MR ANKIT SHAH For the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR. MAULIK G. NANAVATI FOR NANAVATI & CO.(7105) for the Respondent(s)
No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA
AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 12/03/2026
COMMON 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'
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
2013"), on the market value computed by application of the
multiplication factor 2, which was granted vide award dated
19.03.2020 / 20.03.2020 in the petition concerned.
2. The contention is that the award dated 19.03.2020 /
20.03.2020 in the petition concerned 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
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 set of 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
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
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. Alexander19)
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, (5th 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
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
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
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
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)
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
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
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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
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
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-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
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 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.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
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 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 set of writ petitions are partly
allowed."
5. Mr.Maulik G. Nanavati, the learned advocate appearing
on behalf of the respondent NHAI could not raise any
plausible objection to the prayers made in the writ petition.
6. On a query made by the Court, it is admitted by
Mr.Nanavati, the learned advocate for the NHAI that there is
no challenge to the decision of this Court dated 23.12.2025,
whereunder the issue has been adjudicated and the same is
holding the field as on date.
7. We, therefore, find that the present set of writ petitions
(eight in number) can be decided in the same terms and
conditions in the judgment and order dated 26.02.2026
passed in Special Civil Application No.2324 of 2026.
8. We, therefore, direct as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3260/2026 ORDER DATED: 12/03/2026
undefined
i. The competent authority shall pass the award for
grant of additional compensation @ 12% on the market
value determined under Section 26(2) of the Act' 2013
by application of multiplication factor 2 as indicated in
the award dated 19.03.2020 / 20.03.2020 in the petition
concerned.
ii. The statutory interest under Section 80 on the
unpaid amount of additional compensation is hereby
awarded, for a period of three years from the date of
making of the award, i.e. 19.03.2020 / 20.03.2020 in the
petition concerned.
iii. As regards the prayer made in the writ petition
about the grant of benefit as contained in the Second
and Third Schedules of the Act' 2013, we reject the
prayer for the same reasoning and for the same terms
and conditions of the judgment and order dated
26.02.2026.
9. With the above, the present set of writ petitions are
partly allowed.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
C.M. JOSHI
