Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kanhiyalal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 24 July, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
1 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI
FIRST APPEAL No. 501 of 2016
MUKESH AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 502 of 2016
KANHIYALAL AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 503 of 2016
DECEASED PEMA THROUGH LR MANGILAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
...........................................................................................................................
WITH
FRST APPEAL No. 1515 of 2023
KEKU
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
..........................................................................................................................
WITH
FIRST APPEAL No. 1516 of 2023
NANAKLAL
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
..........................................................................................................................
AND
FIRST APPEAL No. 1517 of 2023
NANDRAM AND OTHERS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
2 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
.........................................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri Jitendra Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Dinesh Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondents/State.
.............................................................................................................................
Heard on : 12.02.2026
Pronounced on : 24.07.2026
ORDER
The present bunch of appeals is based on identical set of facts. The
learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the same can be decided by
a common order as common question of market value of the acquired land is
involved and in all the cases, the facts are identical. Thus, the same is being
decided by this common order. However, for the convenience and ready
reference, facts of F.A. No. 501/2016 are being referred.
02. The appellants/land owners have filed this appeal in terms of Section 54
of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred for short ‘the L.A. Act‘)
being aggrieved by the award passed by the Reference Court on 04.03.2016
whereby the Reference filed by the appellants in terms of Section 18 of the L.A.
Act was partially allowed by enhancing the amount of compensation, but not to
the extent as demanded by the appellants.
03. The facts of the case are that for the construction of Hanuman Kheda
Pond, the respondents/State intended to acquire the land of Village – Ringnod,
Tehsil – Sardarpur, Dist. Dhar. Accordingly, preliminary notification in terms of
Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 19.06.2009 and after
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
3 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
following the formalities under the L.A. Act, the award was passed on
23.02.2011 by the Land Acquisition Officer whereby the market value of the
land was determined as Rs.7,42,000/- for irrigated land and Rs.3,65,000/- for
unirrigated land. In the case of land owners in F.A. No. 501/2016 an area of
1.945 hectares out of survey no. 969/2 of their ownership was acquired.
Accordingly, a compensation of Rs.14,43,190/- + an amount of Rs.21,237/- for
pump in the land was awarded to the present appellants. Appellants being
aggrieved by the inadequacy of the same preferred Reference before the learned
District Court in terms of Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for
short the L.A. Act).
04. The learned District Court after recording evidence concluded that the
sale deeds placed on record by the appellants as Ex.P/1 & P/2 are for a smaller
area, thus, the same cannot be relied upon for determining the market value of
the land. As such, the Reference Court in terms of findings recorded in para-44
determined that the market rate of the land should be taken at Rs.9 lakhs per
hectare for irrigated land and Rs.6 lakhs per hectare for unirrigated land. The
appellants still feel that the compensation is not adequate. Thus, being aggrieved
by the same, the present appeal has been filed in terms of Section 54 of the L.A.
Act.
Submissions by learned Counsel for the Appellants:
05. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the present case the
land of the appellants admeasuring 1.945 hectare was acquired which is situated
in Village – Ringnod itself, thus the Reference Court while considering the
market value of the land in question should have relied upon the sale deeds
which were exhibited by the appellants. The sale deed dated 30.03.2007
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
4 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
(Ex.P/1) was executed for an area of 0.63 hectare for a sale consideration of
Rs.3 lakhs and the sale deed dated 17.02.2009 (Ex.P/2) was executed for an area
of 0.042 hectare for a sale consideration of Rs.2,85,000/-. Thus, according to the
sale deed Ex. P/2, which has higher value and more proximate to the
notification issued under section 4 (1) of the L.A. Act on 19.06.2009, market
value of the land should have been taken at Rs.67,85,714/- per hectare for
unirrigated land and one and a half times times of that for irrigated land i.e.
Rs.1,01,78,517/- per hectare. The learned counsel submits that it is settled
position of law that the sale deed of highest value has to be considered for
determining the market value of the land acquired. He relies upon the judgment
of Sitabai & Ors. vs. State of M.P. & Ors., (2009) 2 M.P.H.T. 442. Thus, he
submits that the Reference Court has committed grave error of law in not
determining the compensation based on the sale deed of highest value in Ex.P/2.
Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed by enhancing the compensation in
terms of the above submissions.
Submissions by the learned Counsel for the Respondents:
06. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that a
perusal of the impugned award passed by the Reference Court would show that
the Reference Court has determined the value at Rs.6 lakhs per hectare for
unirrigated land and Rs.9 lakhs per hectare for irrigated land and then directed
to calculate compensation based on such market value without there being any
deduction for development charges. He, thus submits that though the market
value is much more than the prevalent Collector guidelines, however, still for
the sake of arguments, it is accepted that it was on a lesser side then also in
absence of any deduction from the same the ultimate amount of compensation is
adequate, hence no interference in the impugned award is warranted. As such,Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
5 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
the learned Counsel submits that adequate compensation has been paid to the
appellants.
Rejoinder by the learned Counsel for the Appellants:
07. Responding to this submission of the learned counsel for the
respondents/State, the learned counsel for the appellants refers to a judgment
passed by this Court on 07.07.2017 in the case of Kachra vs. State of M.P. &
Anr. (F.A. No. 155/2009). He submits that as the land was being acquired for
construction of pond, no deduction for development charges is required to be
done. Hence, the compensation deserves to be enhanced by applying correct
market value of the land.
Consideration and Conclusions by Court:
08. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
09. The solitary bone of contention in the present case is the market value of
the land and the basis for enhancement in the market value is two sale deeds
which were executed on 30.03.2007 (Ex.P/1) and 17.02.2009 (Ex.P/2).
10. A perusal of the record would show that preliminary notification was
issued in terms of Section 4(1) of the L.A. Act on 19.06.2009, thus though both
the sale deeds are relevant in the context of point of time, however, it is not only
the point of time which makes a sale deed relevant for the purposes of
determination of compensation, however, there are several other factors like the
land must be comparable in nature, similar potential, location, situation etc.Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
6 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
11. The Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down tests, from time to time, for
determination of ‘market value’ of the land by comparable sale method. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special
Land Acquisition Officer, (1988) 3 SCC 751, held in para 4 and 9 as under:
“4. The following factors must be etched on the mental screen:
(1) A reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not
an appeal against the award and the court cannot take into account
the material relied upon by the Land Acquisition Officer in his
award unless the same material is produced and proved before the
court.
(2) So also the award of the Land Acquisition Officer is not to be
treated as a judgment of the trial court open or exposed to
challenge before the court hearing the reference. It is merely an
offer made by the Land Acquisition Officer and the material utilised
by him for making his valuation cannot be utilised by the court
unless produced and proved before it. It is not the function of the
court to sit in appeal against the award, approve or disapprove its
reasoning, or correct its error or affirm, modify or reverse the
conclusion reached by the Land Acquisition Officer, as if it were an
appellate court.
(3) The court has to treat the reference as an original proceeding
before it and determine the market value afresh on the basis of the
material produced before it.
(4) The claimant is in the position of a plaintiff who has to show
that the price offered for his land in the award is inadequate on the
basis of the materials produced in the court. Of course the
materials placed and proved by the other side can also be taken
into account for this purpose.
(5) The market value of land under acquisition has to be determined
as on the crucial date of publication of the notification under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act (dates of notifications under
Sections 6 and 9 are irrelevant).
(6) The determination has to be made standing on the date line of
valuation (date of publication of notification under Section 4) as if
the valuer is a hypothetical purchaser willing to purchase land from
the open market and is prepared to pay a reasonable price as on
that day. It has also to be assumed that the vendor is willing to sell
the land at a reasonable price.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
7 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
(7) In doing so by the instances method, the court has to correlate
the market value reflected in the most comparable instance which
provides the index of market value.
(8) Only genuine instances have to be taken into account.
(Sometimes instances are rigged up in anticipation of acquisition of
land.)
(9) Even post-notification instances can be taken into account (1) if
they are very proximate, (2) genuine and (3) the acquisition itself
has not motivated the purchaser to pay a higher price on account of
the resultant improvement in development prospects.
(10) The most comparable instances out of the genuine instances
have to be identified on the following considerations:
(i) proximity from time angle,
(ii) proximity from situation angle.
(11) Having identified the instances which provide the index of
market value the price reflected therein may be taken as the norm
and the market value of the land under acquisition may be deduced
by making suitable adjustments for the plus and minus factors vis-Ã -
vis land under acquisition by placing the two in juxtaposition.
(12) A balance-sheet of plus and minus factors may be drawn for
this purpose and the relevant factors may be evaluated in terms of
price variation as a prudent purchaser would do.
(13) The market value of the land under acquisition has thereafter
to be deduced by loading the price reflected in the instance taken as
norm for plus factors and unloading it for minus factors.
(14) The exercise indicated in clauses (11) to (13) has to be
undertaken in a common sense manner as a prudent man of the
world of business would do. We may illustrate some such
illustrative (not exhaustive) factors:
Plus factors Minus factors
1 smallness of size 1 largeness of area
2 proximity to a road 2 situation in the interior at a
distance from the road
3 frontage on a road 3 narrow strip of land with very
small frontage compared to
depth
4 nearness to developed 4 lower level requiring the
area depressed portion to be filled
up
5 regular shape 5 remoteness from developed
locality
6 level vis-Ã -vis land 6 some special disadvantageous
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
8 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
under acquisition factor which would deter a
purchaser
7 special value for an
owner of an adjoining
property to whom it
may have some very
special advantage
(15) The evaluation of these factors of course depends on the facts
of each case. There cannot be any hard and fast or rigid rule.
Common sense is the best and most reliable guide. For instance,
take the factor regarding the size. A building plot of land say 500 to
1000 sq. yds. cannot be compared with a large tract or block of
land of say 10,000 sq. yds. or more. Firstly while a smaller plot is
within the reach of many, a large block of land will have to be
developed by preparing a lay out, carving out roads, leaving open
space, plotting out smaller plots, waiting for purchasers
(meanwhile the invested money will be blocked up) and the hazards
of an entrepreneur. The factor can be discounted by making a
deduction by way of an allowance at an appropriate rate ranging
approximately between 20 per cent to 50 per cent to account for
land required to be set apart for carving out lands and plotting out
small plots. The discounting will to some extent also depend on
whether it is a rural area or urban area, whether building activity is
picking up, and whether waiting period during which the capital of
the entrepreneur would be locked up, will be longer or shorter and
the attendant hazards.
(16) Every case must be dealt with on its own fact pattern bearing
in mind all these factors as a prudent purchaser of land in which
position the judge must place himself.
(17) These are general guidelines to be applied with understanding
informed with common sense.
9. The more serious grievance of the appellant however is that the
High Court has depressed the market value excessively in
evaluating the land in question at Rs 7000 per acre as compared to
the land abutting on the Ganeshkhand Road valued at Rs 20,000
per acre, the land abutting in the interior of Survey No. 86 valued at
Rs 16,000, and land abutting on Pashan Road valued at Rs 12,000
per acre. A glance at the sketch on the record shows that the
appellant’s land is situated very much in the interior as compared to
the other parcels of land. It is in the midst of large blocks of
undeveloped land. A hypothetical purchaser would not offer the
same market value for lands with such a situation as lands which
are nearer to the developed area and abut on a road or are nearer
to a road. The development of lands which are nearer to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
9 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
developed area and nearer to the road can reasonably be expected
to take place much earlier. Only after such lands are developed and
construction comes up, the development would proceed further in
the interior. It would not be unreasonable to visualize that a
considerable time would elapse before development could reach the
block of undeveloped land located in the interior. Besides, the land
which is situated in the interior does not fetch the same value as the
land which is nearer to the developed area and nearer to the road.
If a hypothetical purchaser opts to purchase the land situated in the
interior in the midst of an undeveloped area, he would doubtless
take into account the factor pertaining to the estimated time for
development to reach the land in the interior. For, his capital would
be unprofitably locked up for a very long time depending on the
estimated time required for the development to reach the land in the
interior. Meanwhile he would have to suffer loss of interest It is,
therefore, understandable that the land in the interior would fetch
much smaller price as compared to the lands situated nearer to the
developed locality. More so as all these factors are incapable of
precise or scientific evaluation. The valuer has to indulge in some
amount of guesswork and make the best of the situation. The High
Court having accorded anxious consideration to all these factors of
uncertainty has arrived at the valuation of Rs 7000 per acre. Says
the High Court in para 51 of the judgment:
“This brings up for final consideration the plots which we have
described as interior plots in all the survey numbers and which do
not have a frontage on the roads. A lower price will have to be
provided for these plots, since the plot holders will have to spend
moneys for getting water and drainage connections which are given
only up to the municipal roads. Then again, in our opinion, the
interior plots would not be sold at all as long as any of the plots
having a frontage on Pashan Road or Baner Road are sold, though
once such plots have been disposed of the demand for interior plots
would certainly pick up. Here again, it is impossible to be precise in
fixing the value; but in our opinion the interior plots may fairly be
valued at Rs 7000 per acre. As stated earlier, the sales of these
plots would commence after all the plots having a frontage on
Pashan Road and Baner Road are disposed of i.e. after 12 years,
and we may say that those plots would be sold within a period of
about 4 years.”
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Mody vs. State of
Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 234 has held in paras 12 to 15 as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
10 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
“12. The only evidence that could be considered and relied upon
is Exhibit 1. The following criteria provide a good indication of
whether a sale deed may be comparable to the one in question:
(1) it must be within a reasonable time of date of notification
under Section 4(1) of the Act;
(2) it should be a bonafide transaction;
(3) it should be a sale of the land acquired or of the land adjacent
to the one acquired; and
(4) it should possess similar advantage.
13. Although the land whose sale is evidenced in Exhibit 1 is not
an excellent comparison in terms of area, the same indicates a
sales transaction completed at around the same time as the
acquisition of the said land. Moreover, Exhibit 1 also concerns a
plot that is in geographical proximity to the acquired land. There
being no other evidence on record, and since we are not inclined
to remand the matter after such a long delay, we would rely on
Exhibit 1 with necessary scrutiny and caution. Reliance could be
placed on the said documentary evidence for determining and
assessing the compensation of the acquired land after giving the
necessary deduction.
14. The High Court appears to have taken notice of the
aforementioned criteria and has given some discount in
compensation as the land under Exhibit 1 is a very small piece of
land and the land acquired in the case in hand is much larger in
size. After giving the said discount, the High Court computed the
compensation at the rate of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acre for the
acquired land. While determining compensation, some conjecture
is unavoidable as it is generally not possible to have any
documentary evidence of sale of land of similar nature and in the
near vicinity of the acquired land. The value shown in Exhibit 1
cannot be assessed as the value of the acquired land for the
reason that the said land which is sold under Exhibit 1 is a very
small piece of land, whereas the acquired land being a large tract
of land.
15. This Court has held in Administrator General of West Bengal
vs. Collector, Varanasi reported at (1988) 2 SCC 150, that where
large tracts of land are required to be valued, valuation in
transactions with regard to small plots is not to be taken as the
real basis for determining the compensation of large tracts of
land. It follows that where the market-value of large block of land
is determined on the basis of sale transactions for smaller
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
11 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
property, appropriate deduction has to be made for making
allowance for the loss of the acquired land required to be used for
internal development such as construction of roads, drains,
sewers, open spaces and the expenditure involved in providing
other amenities like water, electricity etc. The extent of area
required to be set apart has to be assessed by the Court having
regard to the shape, size and situation of the concerned block of
land.”
13. Again, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gujarat Industrial
Development Corpn. v. Narottambhai Morarbhai, (1996) 11 SCC 159 held in
para 6 as under:
“6. No prudent purchaser would purchase large extent of land
on the basis of sale of a small extent of land in the open market.
The acid test the court should always adopt in determining
market value in the matter of compulsory acquisition would be
to eschew feats of imagination, sit in the armchair of a prudent
willing purchaser, it should consider whether the willing vendee
would offer the rate at which the trial court proposes to
determine the compensation. Taking these facts into
consideration, we are of the view that the reasonable and
adequate compensation for the lands would be at a net rate of Rs
22 per sq. mtr., after giving deduction of 1/3rd of the amount
towards developmental charges. Therefore, the claimants would
be entitled to the compensation @ Rs 22 per sq. mtr. They are
also entitled to the statutory benefits on the enhanced
compensation.”
14. As such, it is necessary not only that the exemplar sale deeds should be of
a period reasonably proximate to the date of the notification, but also that the
comparable nature of the land, its location, namely its adjacency to the acquired
land, the bona fide nature of the transaction, and the possession of similar
advantages should also be proved.
15. As far as the stand of the State that the guidelines are the correct paramter
to determine the compensation. This issue is no more res integra. Section 23 of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
12 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
the L.A. Act provides several parameters for determination of mrket value. One
of them is Collector guideline, however, exemplars contained in the sale deeds
are also significant and the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court have
repeatedly held that market value has to be determined based on exemplars
having qualities as mentioned hereinabove.
16. In the present case, the evidence which has come on record would show
that the appellants have exhibited sale deeds of Ex.P/1 & P/2, however, nearness
of the land of the those sale deeds with the acquired land has not been pleaded
or proved in evidence. The statement of Rohit PW-1 would show that though he
has stated that said sale deeds have been exhibited which are of Village –
Ringnod itself, however, there is nothing to demonstrate that they are adjacent
to the land acquired or even the fact that they possess similar advantages. If this
evidence is examined in the light of the testimony of DW-1, B.S. Avasiya, it
becomes evident that, in paragraph 3 of his deposition, he has stated that the
acquired land is situated far from the village area and that a dirt road has to be
used to reach the land. This statement of DW-1 was tried to be tested in his
cross-examination, however, nothing substantial was forthcoming from the
cross-examination. A perusal of the sale deed Ex.P/1 would show that it
provides that the said sale deed was executed for a land of an area of 0.063
hectare which is in the village and around 1000 feet away from the road and it is
in the shape of Bada (farmyard or enclosure). Similarly, sale deed Ex.P/2 would
show that the same was executed for an area of 0.042 hectare which is situated
in a shape of a plot of the size of 95 x 29 square feet i.e. 2755 square feet around
1/2 kilo meter from the road near village. From the description of the land
which was the subject matter of aforesaid two sale deeds, evidence of DW-1
and looking to the size of acquired land at 1.945 hectare, this court arrives at an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
13 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
inescapable conclusion that the land acquired by the respondent was not
comparable in nature as according to the evidence of the DW-1, the acquired
land is situated very far from the village whereas the land in those sale deeds is
situated in the village itself and about 1/2 to 1 kilometer from the road. As
opposed to this evidence there is complete absence of any proof of nearness of
the acquired land with the land of sale deeds in the evidence of the appellants.
17. As such, the exemplars of sale deeds in Ex. P/1 and P/2 cannot be relied
upon so as to readily adopt the market value of those sale deeds for
determination of market value of the acquired land.
18. However, discarding the market value as per exemplars Ex.P/1 & P/2,
does not mean that those exemplars itself are discarded, for the sake of clarity it
is noted that this court has declined to adopt same market value as contained in
those exemplars but has not discarded them altogether, because the facts
remains that both of those sale deeds (Ex. P/1 & P/2) are undoubtedly pertains
to the land situated in the same village i.e. Ringnod, where the acquired land is
situated.
19. Now, where though sale deeds are available but they are for smaller plots
and not of similar nature of land, also no other cogent material is available for
determination of market value of the acquired land, then what has to be done in
such situation. This question has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in several cases. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hookiyar Singh v.
Special Land Acquisition Officer, (1996) 3 SCC 766 held in para 6 as under:
“6. It is settled law that the burden of proof of market value
prevailing as on the date of publication of Section 4(1)
notification is always on the claimants. Though this Court hasSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2043014 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
time and again pointed out the apathy and blatant lapse on the
part of the acquiring officer to adduce evidence and also
improper or ineffective or lack of interest on the part of the
counsel for the State to cross-examine the witnesses on material
facts, it is the duty of the court to carefully scrutinise the evidence
and determine just and adequate compensation. If the sale deeds
are found to be genuine, the market value mentioned therein must
be presumed to be correct. If the genuineness is doubted, it
cannot be relied upon. Proper tests and principles laid down by
this Court must be applied to determine compensation. Since the
LAO as well as the High Court placed reliance on the sale deed
which commanded market value of a maximum of Rs 15,000 and
odd, the question is: what would be the just and adequate
compensation to be paid in respect of the lands? The court must
not indulge in feats of imagination but, sit in the armchair of a
prudent purchaser in open market and to put a question to itself
whether as a prudent purchaser it would offer the same price in
the open market as is to be determined? This should be the acid
test. The District Court was not right in holding that the lands are
possessed of future potentiality as public purpose is industrial
development. Section 24 clause fifthly prohibits taking into
consideration future user to which the land will put when
acquired. Considered from the fluctuation in the prices placed on
record and large area involved in the acquisition, situation of the
lands, actual user of the lands as agricultural lands and on the
totality of the facts in this case, treating all the lands as
agricultural lands, we are of the considered view that the market
value of the land per acre would be Rs 35,000. The claimants are
accordingly entitled to this amount. It is no ground for the
claimants to contend that as they are required to refund the
difference of the compensation amount, the amount determined by
the High Court or Reference Court should be confirmed. If that
contention is given acceptance in no case proper compensation
can be fixed by the appellate court.”
20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Hans Raj,
(1994) 5 SCC 734 held in para 4 as under:
“4. Having given our anxious consideration to the respective
contentions, we are of the considered view that the learned Single
Judge of the High Court committed a grave error in working out
average price paid under the sale transactions to determine theSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2043015 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
market value of the acquired land on that basis. As the method of
averaging the prices fetched by sales of different lands of different
kinds at different times, for fixing the market value of the acquired
land, if followed, could bring about a figure of price which may
not at all be regarded as the price to be fetched by sale of
acquired land. One should not have, ordinarily recourse to such
method. It is well settled that genuine and bona fide sale
transactions in respect of the land under acquisition or in its
absence the bona fide sale transactions proximate to the point of
acquisition of the lands situated in the neighbourhood of the
acquired lands possessing similar value or utility taken place
between a willing vendee and the willing vendor which could be
expected to reflect the true value, as agreed between reasonable
prudent persons acting in the normal market conditions are the
real basis to determine the market value. The learned Single
Judge did not adopt that method. As stated earlier, it is agreed
between learned counsel appearing for contesting parties that Ex.
R-5 dated August 4, 1965 which works out to Rs 78 per marla,
could form the basis for the fixation of the market value of
acquired land. On the basis of the said agreement and having
regard to lapse of three years’ time between the date of the
purchase under Ex. R-5 in August 1965 and the date of
acquisition and sudden developmental activities in and around
the acquired land, we are of the view that fixation of the market
value of acquired land @ Rs 100 per marla would be just and
reasonable. The respondent-claimants would be entitled to the
proportionate solatium on the enhanced market value of land @
15% and interest @ 6% on the enhanced compensation from the
date of taking possession of the land till payment. We do not
propose to interfere with the determination of the market value of
structure on the acquired land at Rs 17,000 made by the learned
Single Judge. It is accordingly confirmed.”
21. Again, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer
v. Karigowda, (2010) 5 SCC 708 held in para 28, 29, 30, 37 to 41, 43, 70, 71,
75, 76, 77, 83 and 91 as under:
“28. We may notice that Part III provides for procedure and
rights of the claimants to receive compensation for acquisition of
their land and also states various legal remedies which are
available to them under the scheme of the Act. Under Section 18
of the Act, the Reference Court determines the quantum of
compensation payable to the claimants. Section 23 providesSignature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:2043016 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
guidelines, which would be taken into consideration by the court
of competent jurisdiction while determining the compensation to
be awarded for the acquired land. Section 24 of the Act is a
negative provision and states what should not be considered by
the court while determining the compensation. In other words,
Sections 23 and 24 of the Act provide a complete scheme which
can safely be termed as statutory guidelines and factors which are
to be considered or not to be considered by the court while
determining the market value of the acquired land. These
provisions provide a limitation within which the court has to
exercise its judicial discretion while ensuring that the claimants
get a fair market value of the acquired land with statutory and
permissible benefits. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act and
the interpretation which these provisions have received in the
past, it is difficult even to comprehend that there is possibility of
providing any straitjacket formula which can be treated as
panacea to resolve all controversies uniformly, in relation to
determination of the value of the acquired land. This essentially
must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
29. It is a settled principle of law that the onus to prove
entitlement to receive higher compensation is upon the claimants.
In Basant Kumar v. Union of India [(1996) 11 SCC 542] this
Court held that the claimants are expected to lead cogent and
proper evidence in support of their claim. Onus primarily is on
the claimants, which they can discharge while placing and
proving on record sale instances and/or such other evidences as
they deem proper, keeping in mind the method of computation for
awarding of compensation which they rely upon. In this very case,
this Court stated the principles of awarding compensation and
placed the matter beyond ambiguity, while also capsulating the
factors regulating the discretion of the Court while awarding the
compensation. This principle was reiterated by this Court even
in Gafar v. Moradabad Development Authority [(2007) 7 SCC
614] and the Court held as under: (SCC p. 620, para 12)“12. As held by this Court in various decisions, the burden is on
the claimants to establish that the amounts awarded to them by
the Land Acquisition Officer are inadequate and that they are
entitled to more. That burden had to be discharged by the
claimants and only if the initial burden in that behalf was
discharged, the burden shifted to the State to justify the award.”
Thus, the onus being primarily upon the claimants, they are
expected to lead evidence to revert the same, if they so desire. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
17 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
other words, it cannot be said that there is no onus whatsoever
upon the State in such reference proceedings. The court cannot
lose sight of the facts and clear position of documents, that
obligation to pay fair compensation is on the State in its
absolute terms. Every case has to be examined on its own facts
and the courts are expected to scrutinise the evidence led by the
parties in such proceedings.
30. At the cost of some repetition, we may notice that the
provisions of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act have been enacted by
the legislature with certain objects in mind. The intention of the
legislature is an important factor in relation to interpretation of
statutes. The statute law and the case law go side by side and
quite often the relationship between them is supplementary. In
other words, interpretation is guided by the spirit of the
enactment. Interpretation can be literal or functional. Literal
interpretation would not look beyond litera legis, while functional
interpretation may make some deviation to the letter of the law.
Unless the law is logically defective and suffers from conceptual
and inherent ambiguity, it should be given its literal meaning.
Where the law suffers from ambiguity, it is said: (Peerless
General Finance case [RBI v. Peerless General Finance and
Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424] , SCC p. 450, para 33)
“33. Interpretation must depend on the text and the context. They
are the bases of interpretation. One may well say that if the text is
the texture, context is what gives the colour. Neither can be
ignored. Both are important. That interpretation is best which
makes the textual interpretation match the contextual. A statute is
best interpreted when we know why it was enacted.”
37. There are certain provisions which are capable of being given
general description. Normally such provisions have two
concepts–factual situation and the legal consequences ensuing
therefrom. As already noticed, it is for the claimants to ascertain
as a matter of fact–location, potential and quality of land for
establishing its fair market value. After this fact is ascertained,
its legal consequences i.e. awarding of compensation in terms of
Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, the question before a court of law
is, whether the factual situation before it falls within the general
description and principles in the statute. (Principles of Statutory
Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, p. 51, 9th Edn., 2004.)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
18 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
38. In the light of these principles now we may advert to the
language of Sections 23 and 24 of the Act. The provision opens
with the words, that in determining the amount of compensation
to be awarded for land acquired under the Act, the court shall
take into consideration the stated criteria and in terms of Section
23(1-A), the claimants would be entitled to additional amount @
12% per annum on such market value for the period commencing
on and from the date of the publication of the notification under
Section 4, to the date on which the award is made by the
Collector or possession of the land is taken, whichever is earlier.
In addition to this, in terms of Section 23(2), the landowner
claimants are entitled to 30% “on such market value” because of
the compulsory nature of acquisition.
39. “Such market value” is an expression which must be read
ejusdem generis to the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Act, as
they alone would provide meaning and relevancy to the
guidelines which are to be taken into consideration by the courts
for determining the market value of the land. The expression
“shall” can hardly be construed as “may” giving an absolute
discretion to the court to take or not to take into consideration the
factors stated in Section 23(1) of the Act. The expression “shall”
thus would have to be construed as mandatory and not directory.
It is more so, keeping in view the language of Section 24 of the
Act, which mandates that the court shall not take into
consideration the matters indicated in clauses Firstly to Eighthly
of Section 24 of the Act. This legislative intent needs to be noticed
for beneficial and proper interpretation of these provisions in the
light of the scheme underlining the provisions of the Act.
40. The expression “such market value” used in Sections 23(1-A)
and 23(2) respectively obviously would mean and refers to the
market value determined in terms of Section 23(1) of the Act. This
expression has been well explained by different judicial
pronouncements and they have consistently been following what
the Privy Council in Municipal Council of Colombo v. Kuna
Mana Navanna Suna Pana Letchiman Chettiar [AIR 1947 PC
118] laid down. There it is stated that “such market value” as
used in Section 23 of the Act is the price which a willing vendor
might be expected to obtain in the open market from a willing
purchaser. It is the price which would be payable to a person
after the complete appraisal of land with its peculiar advantages
and disadvantages being estimated with reference to commercial
value. This principle holds good even now and any other
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
19 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
consequential right, legal or commercial, which remotely flows
from an agricultural activity will not and should not be treated as
a relevant consideration.
41. Equally true will be the principle that the extent of
compensation would always depend on the facts and
circumstances of the given case and it is not possible to set any
absolute legal principle as a panacea which uniformly will be
applicable or capable of being applied as a binding precedent de
hors the facts of a given case.
43. A Bench of this Court in Nelson Fernandes v. Land
Acquisition Officer [(2007) 9 SCC 447] , while discussing on this
aspect of the Act and its relevancy to the market value of the land,
held as under: (SCC p. 456, para 22)
“22. In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded,
the LAO shall be guided by the provisions of Sections 23 and 24
of the Act. As per Section 22 of the Act, the market value of the
land has to be determined at the date of publication of notice
under Section 4 of the Act i.e. 25-8-1994. As per Section 24, the
LAO shall also exclude any increase in the value of land likely to
accrue from use to which it will be put once acquired. The market
value of the land means the price of the land which a willing
seller is reasonably expected to fetch in the open market from a
willing purchaser. In other words, it is a price of the land in
hypothetical market. During the site inspection, it has been
observed that the land under acquisition is situated in Sancoale
and Cortalim Village adjacent to the land already acquired for
the same purpose earlier.”
What method should be adopted for determining the fair market
value of the acquired land
70. To examine what method could be adopted for determining
the market value of land and criticism of the method adopted by
the Land Acquisition Collector, by the courts, that the same is not
in accordance with law, we must notice various methods which
are normally adopted by the courts for determining the fair
market value of the land and which of the method can be more
properly applied in the facts and circumstances of this case.
71. Sections 23 and 24 of the Act spell out the have and have-
nots, applicable to the scheme of awarding compensation by the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
20 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
Collector but do not describe the methodology which should be
adopted by the courts in determining the fair market value of the
land at the relevant time. By development of law, the courts have
adopted different methods for computing the compensation
payable to the landowners depending upon the facts and
circumstances of the case. The courts have been exercising their
discretion by adopting different methods, inter alia the following
methods have a larger acceptance in law:
(a) Sales statistics method.–In applying this method, it has been
stated that, sales must be genuine and bona fide, should have
been executed at the time proximate to the date of notification
under Section 4 of the Act, the land covered by the sale must be in
the vicinity of the acquired land and the land should be
comparable to the acquired land. The land covered under the sale
instance should have similar potential and occasion as that of the
acquired land (Faridabad Gas Power Project, NTPC Ltd. v. Om
Prakash [(2009) 4 SCC 719] , Shaji Kuriakose v. Indian Oil
Corpn. Ltd. [(2001) 7 SCC 650 : AIR 2001 SC 3341]
and Ravinder Narain v. Union of India [(2003) 4 SCC 481] ).
(b) Capitalisation of net income method.–This method has also
been applied by the courts. In this method of determination of
market value, capitalisation of net income method or expert
opinion method has been applied (Union of India v. Shanti
Devi [(1983) 4 SCC 542] , Executive Director v. Sarat Chandra
Bisoi [(2000) 6 SCC 326] and Nelson Fernandes v. Land
Acquisition Officer[(2007) 9 SCC 447] ).
(c) Agricultural yield basis method.–Agricultural yield of the
acquired land with reference to revenue records and keeping in
mind the potential and nature of the land–wet (irrigated), dry
and barren (banjar).
75. It is a settled principle of law that lands of adjacent villages
can be made the basis for determining the fair market value of
the acquired land. This principle of law is qualified by clear
dictum of this Court itself that whenever direct evidence i.e.
instances of the same villages are available, then it is most
desirable that the court should consider that evidence. But where
such evidence is not available court can safely rely upon the sales
statistics of adjoining lands provided the instances are
comparable and the potentiality and location of the land is
somewhat similar. The evidence tendered in relation to the land
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
21 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
of the adjacent villages would be a relevant piece of evidence for
such determination. Once it is shown that situation and potential
of the land in two different villages are the same then they could
be awarded similar compensation or such other compensation as
would be just and fair.
76. The cases of acquisition are not unknown to our legal system
where lands of a number of villages are acquired for the same
public purpose or different schemes but on the commonality of
purpose and unite development. The parties are expected to place
documentary evidence on record that price of the land of
adjoining village has an increasing trend and the court may adopt
such a price as the same is not impermissible. Where there is
commonality of purpose and common development,
compensation based on statistical data of adjacent villages was
held to be proper. Usefully, reference can be made to the
judgments of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union of
India [(1998) 8 SCC 136 : AIR 1999 SC 317 : JT (1998) 7 SC
397] and Union of India v. Bal Ram [(2010) 5 SCC 747 : AIR
2004 SC 3981] .
77. In this regard we may also make a reference to the judgment
of this Court in Kanwar Singh v. Union of India [(1998) 8 SCC
136 : AIR 1999 SC 317 : JT (1998) 7 SC 397] where sale
instances of the adjacent villages were taken into consideration
for the purpose of determining the fair market value of the land in
question and their comparability, potential and acquisition for the
same purpose was hardly in dispute. It was not only permissible
but even more practical for the courts to take into consideration
the sale statistics of the adjacent villages for determining the fair
market value of the acquired land.
83. It is also an accepted judicial norm that the claimants can be
given the benefit of awarding compensation on the basis of the
genuine sale instance containing the highest rate, provided it has
been proved in accordance with law and is a comparable
instance. Such sale instance must satisfy all the requirements and
prerequisites stated in the Act. It should be a bona fide
transaction and should also be in reasonable proximity to the
date of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Since the SLAO
had referred to the four sale instances which were produced
before him and being part of the reference file, they were duly
noticed by the Reference Court as well as by the High Court. But
the courts held that it was not appropriate to apply sales statistics
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
22 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
method in the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the
claimants produced no sale instances. In our view, these sale
instances can be taken into consideration by the Court and benefit
of the highest instance can be granted to the claimants in
accordance with law in fixing the market value of the acquired
land. Whatever benefit accrues to the claimants from the record
produced and proved by the respondents, cannot be denied to
them just because they have not produced evidence by way of sale
instances.
87. The concept of fair compensation payable for the acquired
land is embodied in the Act itself, particularly in view of
clauses Secondly and Fifthly of Section 23 of the Act. In fact, it
was stated during the course of arguments by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellants, that the State Government itself has
given some additional compensation to the claimants for
mulberry crops which were standing at the time of submerging.
We find this stand of the State Government to be reasonable and
fair. Thus, giving a 15% compounded increase for 2½ years on
the sale price of Rs 1,08,000 in respect of garden land, the
claimants would be entitled to get compensation at the rate of Rs
1,53,542.50 per acre for the wet (irrigated) land.
91. It is a settled rudiment of law that the court, in given facts
and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the
potentiality and utility of the land acquired, can award higher
compensation to ensure that injustice is not done to the
claimants and they are not deprived of their property without
grant of fair compensation. Reference, in this regard, can be
made to the judgment of this Court in Land Acquisition
Officer v. Kamadana Ramakrishna Rao [(2007) 3 SCC 526] .
While adopting the average sale method as the formula for
awarding compensation to the claimants, we are also of the
considered view that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the case and the fact that the land is being compulsorily acquired,
the claimants should be awarded a higher compensation. The
compensation at the rate of Rs 2,30,000 per acre for the wetland
and at the rate of Rs 1,53,400 per acre for the dry land would be
just and fair compensation and would do complete justice
between the parties. This element of increase had not been added
by the SLAO which ought to have been done.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
23 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Land Acquisition Officer,
Revenue Divisional Officer v. L. Kamalamma, (1998) 2 SCC 385 held in para
6 as under:
“6. The general trend in the prices of land is on the rise and the
judicial notice of the same had been taken by the High Court
correctly and therefore, cannot be challenged. Puttur is an urban
area and the lands in question are abutting the main road leading
from Tirupathi to Arkonam via Puttur and the acquired land was
in the heart of Puttur town. To the north of the land in question
there is a famous Venkateswaraswamy Temple and to the
immediate south, the famous Tiruthani, one of the abodes of Lord
Subrahamanyaswamy. Therefore taking into consideration the
topography of the land, we may safely proceed on the basis that
the High Court had correctly noted the situation of the land in
question which has the potentiality of being developed as urban
land. Ext. B-30 is a sale deed dated 9-8-1976, the transaction
having taken place prior to eight months from the issue of the
preliminary notification for acquisition of land in the present
case. Having found that the piece of land referred in Ext. B-30 is
situated very close to the lands that are acquired under the
notification in question the reference court and the High Court
relied upon the said document and, in our view, rightly. Further
when no sales of comparable land were available where large
chunks of land had been sold, even land transactions in respect
of smaller extent of land could be taken note of as indicating the
price that it may fetch in respect of large tracts of land by
making appropriate deductions such as for development of the
land by providing enough space for roads, sewers, drains,
expenses involved in formation of a layout, lump sum payment
as also the waiting period required for selling the sites that
would be formed.”
23. It is clear from the above, decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court that in
absence of sales of comparable nature sales of adjacent area or even adjacent
village can be considered, it would be a relevant piece of evidence, however,
looking to the situation, potentiality, size of the land in question, the
compensation may not be similar but guidance can be taken to arrive at a just
and fair compensation. This Court cannot loose sight of the fact that concept of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
24 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
fair compensation for the acquired land is embodied in the L.A. Act and the
Courts can award higher compensation to ensure that injustice is not done with
the land owners. Moreover, it is also equally true that it is obligation of the State
to pay fair compensation to the land owners.
24. In view of the above position of law, in absence of any comparable
exemplar the Court has to place itself in the position of a prudent buyer and ask
itself a question as to whether it would have purchased the land in question for
the rate as proposed. And in absence of availability of any other material, the
Court has to take guidance from the sale deed Ex. P/1 which is for the same
village Ringnod, though the exemplars in Sale Deeds Ex. P/1 and P/2 are not of
comparable nature, nevertheless they are for the land situated in the same
village Ringnod itself. Thus, the Court can use them as an indicator to arrive at a
fair market value of the acquired land. But as the sale deed Ex. P/2 is for a very
small plot this Court does not think it proper to rely upon the same. Considering
that as per the exemplars of Ex.P/1 (which is for a larger area as compared to
Ex. P/2 thus the same is being adopted) the market value of the irrigated land
would come to Rs.71,42,856/- per hectare, whereas in the present case the
Reference Court has determined the market value of the land at Rs.9 lakhs per
hectare and Rs.6 lakhs per hectare for irrigated and unirrigated land
respectively, this Court is of the view that the amount of compensation as
determined is not adequate. Also considering, the land of exemplars is situated
within the village, it is in plot size and near the Raod, whereas the acquired land
is situated at a distant place, having no proper approach Road, and also looking
to the fact that the acquired land is much larger chunk than the land contained in
the exemplars, if 20% of the ‘market value’ in the exemplar is taken that it will
constitute a fair ‘market value’ and thereby adequate amount of compensation
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:20430
25 F.A. Nos. 501/16, 502/16, 503/16, 1515/23, 1516/23, 1517/23
will be arrived at in the present case. Accordingly, the ‘Market Value’ of the
acquired land will come to Rs. 14,28,571/- per hectare for the irrigated land,
considering the sale deed Ex. P/1 is for the year of 2007, this amount is
enhanced to Rs. 15,00,000/- per hectare which is determined as the market value
for the acquired land (for irrigated land).
25. The determination of compensation for unirrigated land has to be done in
the ratio as was adopted by the reference court that is, for irrigated land 1.5
times of the unirrigated land.
26. As such, the appeals stand allowed in above terms. The market value of
the land is determined as Rs. 15,00,000/- per hectare for irrigated land. The
respondents are directed to pay the differential amount of compensation along
with all statutory entitlements in terms of Section 23 of the Land Acquisition
Act as well as other relevant provisions to all the appellants in the present bunch
of appeals.
(PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
Soumya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 31-07-2026
17:03:12
