New Delhi, Dec. 26 -- The Supreme Court has held that courts must not restrict compensation in land acquisition cases to the amount claimed by landowners if the law entitles them to a higher sum, underlining that it is the judiciary's duty to assess and award just compensation based on statutory principles, not on the pleadings of claimants. A bench of justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and Vipul M Pancholi said that once a court arrives at a finding on the correct market value of acquired land, it cannot reduce the compensation on the ground that the landowner did not specifically seek a higher amount. "It is the duty of the Court to assess the compensation for which the landholder is entitled and not the claims made by the landholders," held the bench in a recent judgment, stressing that equity and statutory obligation must guide adjudication in land acquisition matters. The judgment reinforces the principle that land acquisition proceedings are not adversarial in the conventional sense and that courts are duty-bound to ensure landowners receive just and fair compensation in accordance with law. By rejecting a claim-based ceiling on compensation, the ruling further strengthens safeguards against undervaluation of land and underscores that the equitable role of courts in balancing state power of acquisition with the property rights of individuals. The ruling came in an appeal challenging a Karnataka high court judgment that had enhanced compensation for acquired land but restricted the final payable amount to a lower figure because that was the extent of the landowners' claim. The case arose from the acquisition of the petitioner's land for the construction of the left bank canal of the Hirehalla Project in Karnataka. Initially, the land acquisition officer fixed the market value at Rs.1.37 lakh per acre. This was enhanced by the reference court to Rs.5.00 lakh per acre. On appeal, the high court reassessed the evidence and concluded that the correct market value of the land was Rs.16.94 lakh per acre. However, despite this finding, the high court confined the actual compensation payable to Rs.15.00 lakh per acre on the ground that the petitioners had claimed compensation only up to that amount. The Supreme Court found this approach legally unsustainable. Referring to its earlier judgment in Gundabhat & Anr Vs Assistant Commissioner/Land Acquisition Officer (2023), the bench reiterated that once a court determines the market value in accordance with law, it commits a "serious error" if it restricts compensation solely on the basis of the prayer made by the landowners. Setting aside the high court's order, the Supreme Court directed that the petitioner was entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs.16.94 lakh per acre, along with all consequential benefits admissible under the award....