In reference to the current market value, what is the significance of the excess land as indicated by Findlay V. State?

The significance of excess land as indicated by Findlay V. State emphasizes the state's authority to reclaim property that goes beyond what is necessary for public use. In this context, excess land refers to parcels that remain after fulfilling the intended purpose for which land was originally acquired, such as for a roadway or other public project.

The ruling essentially affirms that the state has the right to recover this excess land, which can be seen as a mechanism to ensure efficient use of public assets and resources. It allows the state to potentially repurpose or sell the surplus land for the public good, rather than leaving it idle or underutilized. This reflects a broader principle in land use and eminent domain, underscoring the responsibility to manage land in a way that serves the community as a whole.

The other options do not align with the legal interpretations or implications regarding excess land. For instance, asserting that the owner must surrender it without compensation would contradict property rights. Similarly, stating that the owner has no claim under any circumstances or that the excess must be sold to private developers does not capture the nuanced legal framework established in Findlay V. State, which prioritizes state authority while also implying some level of recourse or compensation for landowners.