Kalubhai Khatubhai Etc. Etc. vs State of Gujarat
Background
The appellants' land in village Morlipura, Gujarat, was acquired in 1986 for the Vadodara Branch Canal of the Narmada Project. A Reference Court raised their compensation from Rs. 19,000/- to Rs. 4,00,000/- per hectare in 2007, relying on a compensation award for a different village (Dumad) acquired for an unrelated highway project. The Gujarat High Court reversed this, cutting the compensation roughly in half by instead relying on a lower rate awarded for land in a third village, Nimeta, that had been acquired five years earlier under a different, older notification.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that the Dumad land (acquired for a different, unrelated project) could not properly guide compensation for the appellants' land. However, it found the High Court itself erred by instead relying on the Nimeta village rate, since that land was acquired under a notification five years prior and could not serve as a fair comparison either. Crucially, the Court noted that other landowners from the appellants' own village, Morlipura, whose land was covered by the same acquisition case, had later been awarded compensation at the same higher rate (Rs. 4,00,000/- per hectare) by the same Reference Court, and the State had accepted that award without appeal and even paid it out. Holding that the appellants could not be treated worse than their fellow villagers under the identical acquisition, the Court restored the original 2007 Reference Court award with 5% simple interest.
Lesson Learnt
When land is acquired for the same public project, courts should ensure similarly situated landowners from the same village receive similar compensation: the government cannot pay a higher amount to one set of affected owners while contesting the identical claim of others in the very same acquisition.