The Supreme Court on October 7, 2026, disposed of cross-appeals arising from a land acquisition dispute concerning about 34.72 acres of land in Gunsada village, Gujarat. The Supreme Court left the disputed questions of fact to the Gujarat High Court and directed the company to deposit an additional ₹15 crore, while continuing the High Court’s stay subject to the conditions set out in its order.
The land acquisition proceedings began in 2005 under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Special Land Acquisition Officer had valued the land at ₹124 per square metre. The Reference Court had enhanced the land valuation to ₹950 per square metre, along with 30% solatium, 12% price escalation, and interest at 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter.
Both sides challenged the award before the Gujarat High Court. The company disputed the enhanced valuation, while the landowners sought further compensation at ₹1,500 per square metre. Those appeals remain pending.
During the proceedings, the landowners also initiated execution proceedings for recovery of approximately ₹67.48 crore. The High Court had stayed implementation of the award and the execution proceedings after directing the company to deposit 50% of the awarded additional compensation along with the applicable components specified in its order.
A significant issue before the Supreme Court concerned the company’s claim that a gorge (nala) running through the land caused waterlogging and reduced the amount of useful land available to it. The Court rejected this assertion, observing that the company had been aware of the gorge, waterlogging and other encumbrances since the acquisition proceedings began in 2005. The Court held that the company could not raise this issue before the High Court.
The Court also noted that several factual questions remained unresolved, including when and to what extent possession of the land had been handed over. It held that these matters should be examined by the High Court in the pending first appeals.
Referring to Malluru Mallappa (Dead) v. Kuruvathappa & Ors., the Supreme Court reiterated that the first appellate court must examine all questions of fact and law, consider the evidence placed by the parties and give reasoned findings on the issues arising in the appeal.
The Supreme Court directed that the High Court’s stay would continue for two months. Within that period, the company must deposit an additional ₹15 crore with the Registrar General of the High Court. The Court directed that the amount be invested in a short-term, interest-bearing fixed deposit with a nationalised bank on an auto-renewal basis.
If the company fails to make the deposit, the High Court’s stay on the award and execution proceedings will stand revoked, allowing the landowners to pursue their claim before the Executing Court. The Supreme Court also requested the High Court to expedite the pending first appeals, while leaving the remaining issues open for determination on their merits.
Case Title: M/S JK Paper Ltd. v. Bipinchandra Natwarlal Shah & Ors. and connected matter
Judges: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu
Decision Date: October 7, 2026
