Topic
Land acquisition in India refers to the government's power to take private land for public purposes under statutes like the RFCTLARR Act and National Highways Act, with mandatory compensation and procedural safeguards.
The Rajasthan High Court upheld the Competent Authority's appointment under Section 2(7A) of the Railways Act, 1989, deeming it valid despite a later acquisition notification. It found no prejudice in the hearing process and no illegality in compensation, impacting landowners of the Nathdwara rail line.
The Delhi High Court held that interest on enhanced compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 runs from the date of dispossession and cannot be denied due to delay in filing amendment applications.
Supreme Court restored a ₹5 lakh per acre rate for LA Act 1894 land in Aspal Extension Drain, overturning High Court’s radial pricing and clarifying that severance, tree compensation and statutory benefits apply uniformly affecting Fazilka landowners.
The Jharkhand High Court ruled that, absent local sale transactions, compensation under Section 26(b) of the 2013 Act must be based on sale deeds from the nearest adjoining village. It affirmed Rs. 99,300 per decimal compensation using a verified deed from Kankebar village, guiding future land acquisition assessments.
The Karnataka HC ruled a 3-year-8-month delay in the final declaration under the KIAD Act broke statutory connectivity, but severability confined relief to landowners who challenged proceedings and refused compensation. Others were barred by estoppel and laches. The decision prevents procedural delays from automatically invalidating entire acquisition schemes where parties have acquiesced.
The Supreme Court ruled that for National Highways Act acquisitions, solatium and interest are payable but must be calculated under the 1894 Land Acquisition Act when the Competent Authority's award pre-dates 1 January 2015 - the date the 2013 RFCTLARR Act was extended to highway projects. The 2013 Act's enhanced compensation regime does not apply retrospectively to finalised awards, directly impacting landowners with pre-2015 awards.
The Gujarat High Court ruled that a District Valuation Committee report is valid evidence for compensation when sale deeds are missing, and upheld the 60 % market-value deduction with a 10 % annual escalation. This sets a clear valuation method for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, affecting both landowners and acquiring authorities.
The Gauhati HC ordered regularisation of Assam Rifles-occupied land and payment of rent arrears and compensation. The ruling benefits the petitioners and landowners, stating that military land occupations must be regularised and compensated.
The Gujarat High Court held that interest on excess compensation under Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act accrues from the date of the Special Land Acquisition Officer’s award (or permanent possession), not from the date of temporary possession. This limits claimants' interest entitlement and clarifies future compensation calculations in land-acquisition cases.
The Uttarakhand High Court set aside two temporary acquisition orders of a helipad, ruling that the State must serve notice under Section 81(2) of the 2013 Land Acquisition Act and that even an unregistered leaseholder qualifies as a ‘person interested’. The decision safeguards leaseholders from unlawful temporary acquisition.
The Rajasthan High Court ruled that demolishing residential premises for road widening without prior notice, a hearing, or compensation violates constitutional due process, and ordered a committee to ensure procedural compliance and award appropriate compensation to affected owners. This decision reinforces procedural safeguards for property owners under the Rajasthan Urban Improvement framework.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that land situated more than ten kilometres from a municipal boundary attracts a 1.5 multiplier in compensation under the 2013 Act, and that the market-value date is the Section 4 notification. This raises the payable amount to ₹99,17,362 per acre, affecting owners and developers acquiring rural land beyond the specified distance.
Even though the Punjab & Haryana High Court condoned a 1,388-day delay in filing the Section 54 appeal, it ruled that such condonation does not trigger interest on the awarded compensation. The decision clarifies that delay relief and interest entitlement are separate legal concepts, denying landowners any additional monetary award for the period of delay.
The Bombay High Court quashed municipal notices to acquire part of a privately owned factory for road widening. It ruled that Sections 297 and 299 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act apply only to existing public streets, so they cannot be used to take private land that is not a street, protecting owners from unlawful acquisition.
Applicants seeking fresh compensation for land acquired under the National Highways project were denied because the court held that the statutory limitation period under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, had expired, invoking the fence-sitter doctrine. The ruling confirms that delayed claims for re-determination are barred, affecting all land-acquisition claimants.