SUMITRABEN SINGABHAI GAMITversusSTATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

                 [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1398 : 2025 INSC 521

                      Sumitraben Singabhai Gamit
                                  v.
                        State of Gujarat & Ors.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 5095 of 2025)
                                   21 April 2025
                 [Dipankar Datta and Manmohan* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       The question involved is the interpretation of proviso to Section
       26(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
       Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
       (“RFCTLARR Act, 2013”) in the context of the date that is relevant
       for determining the market value of the land being acquired.

                                    Headnotes†
       Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
       Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 –
       Relevant date for determining the market value for the land
       sought be acquired – Proviso to Section 26(1) – Legislative
       scheme and legislative intent:
       Held: The use of the word “shall” in Section 26(1) proviso is reflective
       of the legislative mandate that Section 11 Notification is the date
       for determination of the compensation – The legislative intent is to
       ensure that the land owners receive fair compensation reflective
       of the market value prevailing at the time of acquisition. [Para 9]
       “Legislative intent is to ensure that the land owners receive fair
       compensation reflective of the market value prevailing at the time
       of acquisition by fixing the date of 01st January, 2014 as the date
       for determination of market value, the impugned order deprives
       the Appellant of compensation at the 2023 rates, which must be
       considerably higher. [Para 10]

       RFCTLARR Act, 2013 – Whether the High Court was right in
       holding that the date for determination of market value is the
       date of commencement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013:
       Held: The legislative scheme does not give discretion to the Courts
       to select a date for valuation – RFCTLARR Act, 2013 expressly

* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                             1399

         Sumitraben Singabhai Gamit v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


     mandates that compensation/valuation must be determined as of
     the date of Notification under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act,
     2013 – The date of enactment of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 i.e. 01st
     January, 2014 has no relevance to fresh acquisition initiated under
     the statute, it is only relevant for land acquisition proceedings
     had been initiated under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and
     where no award had been made before the enforcement of the
     RFCTLARR Act, 2013. [Paras 11-12]

                                List of Acts
     Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
     Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

                             List of Keywords
     Determination of market value; Legislative intent; Date of enactment.

                            Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5095 Of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 21.08.2024 of the High Court
     of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in SCA No. 20392 of 2023

                         Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Ms. Aastha Mehta, Ms. Poonam Mehta, Ms. Prerana Mohapatra,
     Ms. Prina Sharma, Anshuman Srivastava.
     Adv. for the Respondents:
     Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

     Manmohan, J

1.   The present Appeal has been filed challenging the impugned judgment
     and final order dated 21st August, 2024 passed by the High Court of
     Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No. 20392 of 2023.
2.   Ms. Aastha Mehta, learned counsel for the Appellant stated that
     the High Court had erroneously held that the date for determination
1400                                                        [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


     of market value of yet to be acquired He-0-11-41 sq. meters land
     of Survey No.119 shall be 01st January, 2014 i.e., the date of
     commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency
     in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
     (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RFCTLARR Act, 2013’) instead of
     the date on which acquisition notification is issued as prescribed in
     proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
3.   She stated that the Appellant is the owner of Revenue Block No.119
     (new Revenue Block No.126), situated at village Moje Sarkuva,
     Taluka Vyara, District Tapi, measuring He-0-36-87 sq. meters (total
     area). She further stated that out of this land, an area measuring
     He-0-17-84 sq. meters had been acquired earlier for the purpose
     of constructing the Ukai High Level Cantor Canal. She, however,
     emphasised that an additional portion of He-0-11-41 sq. meters
     had been utilized without carrying out any acquisition proceeding
     or payment of compensation.
4.   She stated that the High Court directed the State of Gujarat to file
     an affidavit regarding the alleged utilization of the land. Pursuant
     to the said direction, the Executive Engineer, Ukai Dam Division-1
     filed an affidavit admitting that He-0-11-41 sq. meters of Appellant’s
     land had been utilized for construction of canal without any legal
     acquisition or payment of compensation.
5.   She submitted that the High Court failed to take into account Section
     26(1) of the RFCTLAAR Act, 2013 especially its proviso which reads
     as under:-
          “Provided that the date for determination of market value
          shall be the date on which the notification has been issued
          under Section 11”.
6.   She submitted that since the acquisition process for He-0-11-41 sq.
     meters of land is yet to commence, the compensation amount can
     be determined only when there is Section 11 Notification qua the
     said land. According to her, there is no discretion given in the statute
     for the purpose of deciding the date of compensation. In support
     of her submission, she relied upon the judgment of the Allahabad
     High Court in Smt. Sabita Sharma & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
     Writ-C No.30088 of 2022.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                      1401

         Sumitraben Singabhai Gamit v. State of Gujarat & Ors.


7.   Learned counsel for the Respondent-State of Gujarat candidly
     admitted that the acquiring body namely, the Executive Engineer,
     Ukai Division-1 at Ukai Dam has till date not been able to submit
     the proposal for acquisition of He-0-11-41 sq. meters on the online
     portal known as “PM Gati Shaki Portal” due to a technical error.
     She assured this Court that the process of acquisition would be
     commenced as soon as the technical error is resolved.
8.   Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view
     that the issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is
     the interpretation of proviso to Section 26(1) of the RFCTLARR Act,
     2013 in the context of the date that is relevant for determining the
     market value of the land being acquired.
9.   This Court is of the view that the said provision lays down the
     methodology for computing the market value of the land on the date
     of the acquisition notification. The use of the word ‘shall’ in Section
     26(1) proviso is reflective of the legislative mandate that Section 11
     Notification is the date for determination of the compensation.
10. This Court has no doubt that the legislative intent is to ensure that
    the land owners receive fair compensation reflective of the market
    value prevailing at the time of acquisition. By fixing the date of 01st
    January, 2014 as the date for determination of market value, the
    impugned order deprives the Appellant of compensation at the 2023
    rates, which must be considerably higher.
11. In fact, the legislative scheme does not give discretion to the Courts
    to select a date for valuation. On the contrary, RFCTLARR Act, 2013
    expressly mandates that compensation/valuation must be determined
    as of the date of Notification under Section 11 of the RFCTLARR
    Act, 2013 – which in this present case is yet to be issued.
12. This Court is also of the view that the date of enactment of RFCTLARR
    Act, 2013 i.e. 01st January, 2014 has no relevance to fresh acquisition
    initiated under the statute. The date of 01st January, 2014 is relevant
    only if land acquisition proceedings had been initiated under the old
    Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and where no award had been made
    before the enforcement of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.
13. Consequently, this Court agrees with the submission of the learned
    counsel for Appellant that proviso to Section 26(1) explicitly states
1402                                                             [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     that the market value of the land shall be determined as on the
     date of issuance of the Notification under Section 11 of RFCTLARR
     Act, 2013
14. Accordingly, the present Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment
    and final order dated 21st August, 2024 passed in R/Special Civil
    Application No. 20392 of 2023 is set aside and it is directed that
    the date of determination of market value of He-0-11-41 sq. meters
    land of Survey No.119 shall be the date on which Notification under
    Section 11 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is issued by the Respondents.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Swathi H. Prasad, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Kanu Agrawal, Adv.)