#Land Acquisition Act

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 Delhi ITAT held that interest payable on compensation under the Land Acquisition Act is exempt under Section 10(37) of the Income-Tax Act, overturning the earlier assessment that taxed it as 'other income'. This relief applies to all individuals and entities receiving acquisition compensation.

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 (Aurangabad Bench) ruled that interest on land acquisition compensation accrues from the date of the award under Section 11, not the notification date under Section 4(1). This aligns with the Full Bench decision in State of Maharashtra v. Kailash Shiva Rangari, impacting pending and future land acquisition disputes in Maharashtra.

The Supreme Court ruled that landowners cannot bypass Section 5A proceedings and later challenge acquisition on grounds of denied hearing. The opportunity of hearing must be substantive, not just ritualistic, and procedural compliance suffices only if objections lack merit. This reinforces natural justice principles in eminent domain cases, impacting landowners, government agencies, and administrative law practitioners.

Bombay High Court affirms 12% annual escalation in compensation for agricultural lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, rejecting the Reference Court's 6% rate. The ruling mandates reliance on comparable sale instances and the acquiring authority's own valuation methodology, increasing compensation from Rs. 2.54 lakh to Rs. 3.14 lakh per hectare for affected landowners.

Bombay High Court affirms that a 20% deduction for development charges in land acquisition compensation is justified under Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act for public purpose projects like schools. The ruling mandates strict comparability of sale instances and rejects escalation claims without concrete proof, setting a precedent for compensation principles in infrastructure acquisitions.

Bombay High Court rules that litigants may amend land acquisition claims to rectify inadvertent errors in expert valuation reports, ensuring fair compensation. The judgment underscores procedural fairness, allowing correction of factual inaccuracies even post-evidence submission, provided no prejudice is caused to the opposing party.

The Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench has ruled that a 75% deduction from sale deed value for small land parcels is unjustified, setting 50% as the reasonable benchmark and requiring 10% annual escalation from the sale date to the Section 4 notification date. This standardizes valuation methodology for agricultural landowners across Maharashtra, ensuring fairer compensation and curbing arbitrary discounts by acquisition authorities.

The Bombay High Court ruled that claimants are entitled to compensation based on proven market value, even when other claimants received lower rates, striking down arbitrary caps tied to multipliers of the original offer. This affirms that individualized evidence of market rates supersedes blanket government policies, empowering landowners to seek just compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Act.

Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench sets aside a land acquisition compensation dismissal where claimants were denied a fair hearing due to their advocate's sudden withdrawal. The court ruled that procedural fairness mandates remand for fresh evidence, ensuring parties do not suffer for counsel's errors.

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) ruled that compensation for acquired land must be calculated based on market value from transactions preceding the acquisition notification. The court also denied rental compensation for periods of pre-notification possession and clarified that interest on compensation accrues from the award date. This decision reinforces evidentiary standards for comparable sales and limits additional claims under the Land Acquisition Act.

Bombay High Court clarifies that interest under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act must be calculated from the date of the award, not possession, while upholding Rs. 4,00,000 per acre compensation for dry land. The ruling disallows rental compensation and sets a precedent for future land acquisition disputes involving delayed payments.

A compromise recorded in Lok Adalat that fails to specify whether acquired land is irrigated or dry does not preclude a subsequent challenge to the classification under the Land Acquisition Act. This ruling protects landowners’ right to accurate compensation by ensuring that procedural settlements cannot silently extinguish substantive rights tied to land type, impacting hundreds of pending acquisition cases across Maharashtra.

Karnataka High Court sets a precedent by dismissing a landowner's appeal under Section 54(2) of the Land Acquisition Act after he accepted compensation, delayed filing for nine years, and failed to disclose a prior Lok Adalat settlement. The ruling reinforces that courts will not entertain appeals constituting abuse of process, protecting finality in land acquisition disputes.