Every land acquisition compensation dispute, when stripped to its essentials, resolves into a single contested figure: the market value of the acquired land on the date of the preliminary notification. Solatium, additional interest and the multiplier factor are all built upon that figure — they are arithmetic superimposed on a foundation that itself must be proved. It follows that the determination of market value in land acquisition is where the overwhelming majority of compensation disputes are won or lost.. A claimant who secures a well-reasoned market value finding has effectively won the case, because everything downstream is a matter of statutory computation. A claimant who fails to lay a proper evidentiary foundation cannot recover it with rhetoric before the Reference Court or the High Court.

This article is written for the practitioner who must actually build — or contest — a market value case under Section 26 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the 2013 Act” or “LARR Act”). It sets out the statutory test, then works through the case law that governs how the underlying evidence is weighed in practice, and closes with a candid, deployable checklist of what works and what does not.

This is the second spoke in a nine-part series on fair compensation in Indian land acquisition; see Fair Compensation in Indian Land Acquisition: LARR, Railways and National Highways — A Practitioner’s Map for the full map. How this evidentiary battle plays out also depends on the forum in which it is fought — a s.64 reference, NH arbitration, or the Railways Act mechanism — examined in Three Forums for Enhancement — s.64 Reference, NH Arbitration and the Railways Act (Spoke 3).

The statutory test: Section 26(1)

Section 26(1) of the 2013 Act directs the Collector to adopt the highest of three measures in determining the market value of the land acquisition:

• Clause (a) — the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for the registration of sale deeds in the area (in Gujarat, the jantri rate; elsewhere the guideline value or ready-reckoner);
• Clause (b) — the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the nearest village or nearest vicinity, ascertained from the sale deeds registered during the preceding three years, of which the top fifty per cent by sale price are to be taken; or
• Clause (c) — the consented amount of compensation, where the land is acquired for private companies or public-private partnership projects.

The Explanation to Section 26 clarifies how the average under clause (b) is to be computed — one takes the registered sale deeds of similar land in the three-year window preceding the notification, arranges them, and averages the higher half. The statute thus builds a deliberate upward bias into the exercise: it discards the bottom half of transactions (which are disproportionately distress sales, undervalued deeds and non-comparable parcels) and averages only the upper half.

Two structural points must be grasped at the outset. First, the three heads are not cumulative and not averaged against one another; the Collector picks the single highest of them. Second — and this is where litigation begins — clause (a) supplies a floor derived from a stamp-duty instrument, while clause (b) requires the Collector to actually gather, sift and average real transactions. The entire evidentiary battleground lies in clause (b), and in the perennial temptation of acquiring authorities to retreat to clause (a) when clause (b) is inconvenient.

Jantri is not market value — a double-edged proposition

The single most misunderstood point in this field is the evidentiary status of the jantri / guideline value. It is essential to state the law precisely, because it cuts both ways.

In Jawajee Naganatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595, the Supreme Court held that the Basic Valuation Register — the guideline value maintained for stamp-duty purposes — has no statutory basis for fixing market value and cannot, by itself, determine the compensation payable for acquired land. The Court placed the burden squarely on the claimant to prove the true market value through bona fide comparable sales. The guideline register was devised to check evasion of stamp duty on the buyer’s side; it is not, and was never intended to be, a measure of what a willing seller would obtain from a willing buyer.

The proposition was reaffirmed and sharpened in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) v. Nemichand Damodardas, 2022 LiveLaw SC 603 (also reported as 2022 SCC OnLine SC 815; judgment dated 11 July 2022), where the Court held that ready-reckoner / guideline (jantri) rates are prepared for the levy of stamp duty and cannot form the basis of acquisition compensation.

Now, why is this double-edged?

• For the claimant, Jawajee Naganatham and BSNL are liberating. They mean that a low jantri rate is not a ceiling. Where genuine sale deeds show that land in the vicinity actually changed hands at figures far above the jantri, the claimant is entitled to compensation at the proven market rate, and the acquiring body cannot hide behind a stale guideline value. This is the everyday reality in Gujarat, where jantri rates chronically lag actual transaction prices by a wide margin.
• For the acquiring body, the very same authorities are a shield. Where a claimant, having no genuine comparable sales, seeks to inflate reliance on the jantri — or worse, to treat the jantri as a self-proving statement of value that requires no evidentiary support — the acquirer can invoke Jawajee Naganatham to insist that the jantri proves nothing on its own and that market value must be established by actual transactions.

The practitioner must therefore know which edge he is holding. If your comparable sales are strong, press them and treat the jantri as an irrelevant floor. If your opponent’s case rests on the jantri alone, Jawajee Naganatham and BSNL are the instruments to dismantle it. What one may never do is treat the guideline value as a substitute for the evidentiary work that Section 26(1)(b) demands.

The comparable-sales method and its adjustments

The comparable-sales method is the orthodox and preferred route to market value, and its governing exposition remains Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, (1988) 3 SCC 751. Though decided under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, its principles are directly carried into the Section 26(1)(b) exercise, which is itself a codified comparable-sales method.

Chimanlal Hargovinddas lays down that the sale instances relied upon must be:

• genuine and bona fide — actual arm’s-length transactions, not paper transfers, collusive deeds, family arrangements or under-reported bargains;
• comparable — of land similar in nature, situation and potential to the acquired land; and
• proximate in time — close to the date of the notification, so that they reflect the value as at the relevant date.

Crucially, the Court recognised that no two parcels are identical, and that the valuer must make plus-and-minus adjustments to a comparable instance to render it a fair guide to the acquired land. The recognised heads of adjustment include:

• Size — a small plot commands a higher per-unit rate than a large tract; an adjustment is required when a small-plot exemplar is applied to a large acquisition (this is the deduction discussed in Part 5 below);
• Situation — frontage, access to a metalled road, corner advantage, proximity to developed areas;
• Time — an escalation or de-escalation to bridge the gap between the date of the exemplar sale and the date of notification; and
• Potential — the land’s realistic capacity for a higher and better use (for instance, agricultural land with genuine non-agricultural / building potential), as distinct from speculative hopes.

The discipline of Chimanlal Hargovinddas is that each of these adjustments must be reasoned and evidence-based, not plucked from the air. A valuation that applies round-figure escalations or deductions without articulating why is vulnerable on reference and on appeal.

Highest exemplar versus mechanical averaging

Having assembled a set of genuine comparable instances, how is the valuer to choose among them? Here the leading authority is Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432, which holds that when several bona fide sale exemplars are available, the highest of them should ordinarily be adopted as the measure of market value, and that a mechanical averaging of high and low instances is to be disapproved.

The rationale is sound: the object of the exercise is to ascertain what the land could fetch in the open market from a willing and prudent purchaser. A genuine transaction at a higher price demonstrates that the market does bear that price; averaging it down against inferior instances penalises the owner for the accident that some neighbours sold cheap. Once a high instance is shown to be genuine, comparable and proximate, it is the best evidence of the land’s earning capacity in the market.

The reader will immediately sense a tension between Mehrawal (adopt the highest exemplar) and Section 26(1)(b) itself (average the top fifty per cent). That tension, and its most important recent iteration, is the subject of the next Part.

The single-deed problem — the centrepiece

This is the heart of modern market value litigation, and the practitioner who masters it holds a decisive advantage.

The rule against solitary reliance

The temptation, for a claimant, is obvious: find the one highest registered sale deed in the vicinity and build the entire claim upon it, invoking Mehrawal for the proposition that the highest exemplar governs. The Supreme Court has now decisively closed that route as a matter of the Section 26(1)(b) methodology.

In Project Director, NHAI v. Alfa Remidis Ltd., 2026 INSC 480, the Court held that Section 26(1)(b) does not permit reliance on a single sale deed to compute the average sale price where the lands are dissimilar; the clause speaks of an average drawn from sale deeds (plural), and multiple deeds are required to make the exercise statistically and evidentially sound. Where the lone exemplar relied upon is unreliable or non-comparable, the Court held, the determination falls back to Section 26(1)(a) — the guideline/jantri value — rather than being anchored to an unsafe single transaction.

The same principle had been laid down in Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel, 2025 INSC 408, where the Court held that a solitary transaction is inadequate and unreliable data on which to fix market value, and that multiple comparable deeds are needed before a safe average can be struck.

The message from Alfa Remidis and Vincent Daniel is unambiguous: one deed is not a market. A single instance may be idiosyncratic — a distress purchase, a premium paid by an adjoining owner for consolidation, a related-party price, or simply an outlier. The statute’s demand for an average of the top half of transactions is precisely a demand for a body of evidence, not a specimen.

Reconciling Mehrawal with Alfa Remidis and Vincent Daniel

At first glance Mehrawal (“adopt the highest exemplar”) and Alfa Remidis / Vincent Daniel (“you may not rely on a single deed”) appear to pull in opposite directions. They do not, once the two propositions are placed at their correct stages of the analysis.

• Alfa Remidis and Vincent Daniel govern the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidentiary base. They say: you must first assemble several genuine, comparable, registered instances within the three-year window. A case cannot be built on one deed.
• Mehrawal governs the selection exercise once a proper body of evidence is before the court. It says: among the several genuine exemplars, do not mechanically average the good with the bad; the highest bona fide instance ordinarily represents the true market potential.

The reconciliation, therefore, is a sequence, not a contradiction. The correct practitioner’s method is:

1. Marshal several genuine sale deeds of similar land from the nearest village or vicinity, registered within the three years preceding the notification — satisfying Alfa Remidis and Vincent Daniel and the plurality requirement of Section 26(1)(b);
2. Test each for bona fides, comparability and proximity under Chimanlal Hargovinddas, discarding the collusive, the under-reported and the non-comparable;
3. From the surviving genuine cluster, argue for the highest bona fide exemplar as the measure, invoking Mehrawal and resisting a mechanical average that would drag the value down.

In short: Alfa Remidis tells you how many deeds you need to be in the game; Mehrawal tells you which of them to anchor on once you are. A claimant who leads only one deed hands the acquiring body the Alfa Remidis fall-back to Section 26(1)(a) — often a low jantri — and forfeits Mehrawal entirely.

The largeness / development deduction

A recurring battleground within the battleground is the deduction the acquirer seeks to apply when small-plot exemplars are used to value a large tract.

Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769, recognises that where market value is derived from sales of small, developed or building plots but the acquired land is a large undeveloped tract, a deduction for development / largeness is warranted — commonly in the range of 20 per cent to 75 per cent. The logic is that a purchaser of a large tract must sink capital into laying out roads, drains, and civic amenities, must sacrifice a portion of the area to those common facilities, and must wait to realise value; the small-plot rate already reflects development the large tract lacks.

The width of the range — 20 per cent to 75 per cent — is where the contest lies. The acquiring body will press for a deduction at the top of the band; the claimant must anchor it at the bottom, or resist it altogether. The most effective techniques of resistance are:

• Match the comparables to the subject land. Where the exemplars are themselves agricultural-to-agricultural transactions of comparably sized parcels — like being compared with like — little or no development deduction is justified, because there is no “small developed plot versus large raw tract” mismatch to correct for. The deduction exists to bridge a difference in kind; where there is no such difference, there is nothing to deduct.
• Show existing access and situation. A tract already abutting a highway or possessing internal access needs less notional development, narrowing the deduction.
• Attack double-counting. If a time or potential adjustment under Chimanlal Hargovinddas has already accounted for a factor, the same factor cannot be deducted again under the largeness head.

The overarching point is that Lal Chand is a principle of reasoned adjustment, not a licence for the acquirer to lop off an arbitrary percentage. An excessive deduction, unsupported by evidence of the actual development the land requires, is as vulnerable on appeal as an unreasoned escalation.

Post-notification sales

Ordinarily, market value is fixed as at the date of the preliminary notification under Section 11(1), and sales after that date are viewed with suspicion — the land acquisition itself may distort the market, and vendors may manufacture inflated deeds to bolster a claim. But the bar is not absolute.

Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, (1988) 3 SCC 751, itself recognises that a proximate, genuine post-notification sale may be considered as evidence of value, provided it is untainted and close in time. The principle is one of weight, not admissibility.

The point has been elaborated recently in NHAI v. Bhaskar Ninu Zambare, 2026:BHC-AUG:13742 (Bombay High Court — persuasive High Court authority), holding that there is no absolute bar on relying on post-notification sale deeds; a proximate, genuine and uninfluenced sale is admissible evidence of market value.

The operative word throughout is proximate. A sale registered days or a few weeks after the notification, in an area not yet visibly affected by the acquisition, may legitimately be considered. A sale registered months after the notification — by which time the acquisition is common knowledge and prices are distorted — carries little weight, and cannot serve as the primary anchor of a valuation. The practitioner may deploy a post-notification instance to corroborate a value established on pre-notification deeds; he should never rest the case on it.

A practitioner’s checklist for building a market value case

The following sequence distils the authorities above into a working method for proving market value in land acquisition

4. Gather multiple registered sale deeds of similar land in the nearest village or vicinity, registered within the three-year window preceding the Section 11(1) notification — never a single deed (Alfa Remidis; Vincent Daniel; Section 26(1)(b)).
5. Test each deed for bona fides, comparability and proximity — genuine arm’s-length price, similar nature/situation/potential, close in time (Chimanlal Hargovinddas).
6. Discredit the distress and under-reported low deeds in the acquirer’s set — collusive transfers, family arrangements, deeds stamped at jantri to evade duty — so they cannot drag the average down.
7. Anchor on the highest genuine exemplar among the surviving cluster; resist mechanical averaging (Mehrawal).
8. Pre-empt the development deduction — lead agricultural-to-agricultural, like-sized comparables that need little or no deduction, and be ready to contest an excessive percentage (Lal Chand).
9. Use the jantri correctly — treat it as a floor, not a ceiling; invoke Jawajee Naganatham and BSNL to prevent the acquirer confining you to it, and to attack any case built on it alone.
10. Deploy post-notification sales only to corroborate, and only if genuinely proximate (Chimanlal Hargovinddas; Bhaskar Ninu Zambare).

What does NOT work — a candid assessment

It is worth being blunt about the arguments that fail, because they fail predictably.

• A single high deed against a cluster of low deeds. This is the most common losing strategy. One handsome exemplar, however genuine, will not carry a valuation when the surrounding registered record shows a body of lower transactions. Alfa Remidis and Vincent Daniel give the acquirer a clean answer: a solitary deed is insufficient data, and the court is entitled to disregard it and fall back to Section 26(1)(a). The lone high deed is evidence to be added to a cluster, not a substitute for one.
• Relying only on the jantri. Whether advanced by a claimant seeking to escape the burden of proving genuine sales, or by an acquirer seeking to cap compensation, a case resting on the guideline value alone is doomed by Jawajee Naganatham and BSNL. The jantri is a stamp-duty instrument; it proves nothing about what the land would actually fetch.
• Post-notification sales as the primary anchor. A valuation whose centre of gravity is a sale registered well after the notification invites the obvious rejoinder that the price is distorted by the acquisition itself. Absent genuine proximity in time, such a sale carries little weight (Chimanlal Hargovinddas; Bhaskar Ninu Zambare) and cannot bear the load of the case.

The common thread is that each failing strategy tries to substitute a shortcut for the disciplined evidentiary work Section 26(1)(b) and Chimanlal Hargovinddas demand — a proper body of genuine, comparable, proximate transactions, honestly adjusted. There is no substitute for that work.

Key takeaways

• Market value is the whole game. Solatium, interest and the multiplier are computed on top of it; win the market value finding and the rest follows.
• Section 26(1) takes the highest of three measures — jantri (clause a), the average of the top fifty per cent of comparable sale deeds over three years (clause b), or the consented amount (clause c). The battle is fought in clause (b).
• Jantri is not market value (Jawajee Naganatham; BSNL) — a floor, not a ceiling. It cuts both ways: claimants use it to go above; acquirers use it to defeat inflated reliance on it.
• Comparable sales must be genuine, comparable and proximate, with reasoned plus-and-minus adjustments (Chimanlal Hargovinddas).
• Adopt the highest bona fide exemplar, not a mechanical average (Mehrawal) — but only after assembling a proper body of deeds.
• One deed is not a market (Alfa Remidis; Vincent Daniel): Section 26(1)(b) needs multiple deeds; on a single unreliable exemplar the court falls back to jantri. Reconcile with Mehrawal by marshalling several genuine deeds, then anchoring on the highest.
• The largeness deduction (20%-75%) applies when small-plot exemplars value a large tract (Lal Chand) — but agricultural-to-agricultural comparables need little or none.
• Post-notification sales are not barred but must be proximate (Chimanlal Hargovinddas; Bhaskar Ninu Zambare); use them to corroborate, never to anchor.

Frequently asked questions

If the registered sale deeds in my area show prices far above the jantri, am I limited to the jantri rate?

No. Section 26(1) requires the Collector to take the highest of the three measures, and Jawajee Naganatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer and BSNL v. Nemichand Damodardas establish that the jantri is a stamp-duty instrument, not a ceiling on market value in land acquisition. If you can prove genuine comparable sales at higher prices, you are entitled to compensation at the proven market rate.

I have one excellent sale deed at a very high price. Can I build my claim on it alone?

This is unsafe. Project Director, NHAI v. Alfa Remidis Ltd. and M.P. Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel hold that Section 26(1)(b) does not permit reliance on a single sale deed, and that a solitary transaction is inadequate data. If your case rests on one deed, the court may disregard it and fall back to the jantri under Section 26(1)(a). Gather several genuine deeds, then argue for the highest among them under Mehrawal Khewaji Trust.

The acquiring body wants a 60% development deduction on my agricultural land. Is that automatic?

No. The deduction under Lal Chand v. Union of India (commonly 20%-75%) exists to correct the mismatch between small developed plots and a large raw tract. Where the comparables are agricultural-to-agricultural transactions of similar size, there is little or no such mismatch, and little or no deduction is justified. An excessive deduction unsupported by evidence of the development actually required is open to challenge on reference and appeal.

Can I rely on a sale deed registered after the acquisition notification?

There is no absolute bar — Chimanlal Hargovinddas and NHAI v. Bhaskar Ninu Zambare confirm that a proximate, genuine, uninfluenced post-notification sale is admissible. But proximity in time is essential: a sale months after the notification, when the acquisition has distorted the market, carries little weight. Use such a sale to corroborate a value established on pre-notification deeds, not as your primary anchor.

Sources & authorities

• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — Sections 11(1), 26 (including 26(1)(a), 26(1)(b) and the Explanation)
• Chimanlal Hargovinddas v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Poona, (1988) 3 SCC 751
• Jawajee Naganatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595
• Mehrawal Khewaji Trust v. State of Punjab, (2012) 5 SCC 432
• Lal Chand v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 769
• Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) v. Nemichand Damodardas, 2022 LiveLaw SC 603 (also 2022 SCC OnLine SC 815; judgment dated 11 July 2022)
• Project Director, NHAI v. Alfa Remidis Ltd., 2026 INSC 480
• Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation v. Vincent Daniel, 2025 INSC 408
• NHAI v. Bhaskar Ninu Zambare, 2026:BHC-AUG:13742 (Bombay High Court)

All authorities independently verified on 20 July 2026.

This article is intended for general information for members of the public and the profession. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an advocate-client relationship. Compensation outcomes turn on the specific facts, documents and evidence of each acquisition. Readers should obtain advice tailored to their own matter before acting. Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

The post Determining Market Value in Land Acquisition: The Evidentiary Battleground appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.