#Land Acquisition Compensation

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.

Bombay High Court fixes market value at Rs.1,725 per square metre for Bokadvira land acquisition, clarifying valuation principles under Section 28A(3) of the Land Acquisition Act.

Supreme Court accepted a 12-year filing delay and denied interest on the enhanced award. It confirmed that lands acquired under the 1999 notification must receive Rs 6.5 lakh per acre with statutory benefits, matching the Ravindra award. The decision ensures equal compensation for similarly situated landowners despite prolonged procedural delays.

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.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that displaced persons whose lands were acquired before the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.98 cannot be denied employment benefits based on arbitrary cut-off dates. The Court directed appointment within four months, emphasizing that procedural limitations cannot override substantive rights of displaced families.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has ruled that employment promised to displaced families under G.O.Ms.No.98/1986 constitutes legally enforceable compensation, not mere policy. Prolonged inaction breaches the doctrine of legitimate expectation and Article 14, mandating immediate consideration of pending applications by affected dependents.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that land irrigated by a natural nullah, even without tube-wells, canals, or wells, qualifies as irrigated land under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. This sets a precedent for fairer compensation in rural acquisition cases where traditional irrigation infrastructure is absent, directly benefiting thousands of small landholders in semi-arid regions.

The Bombay High Court has mandated that Land Acquisition Officers must decide pending Section 28A applications for enhanced compensation within six months, ending decades-long delays that denied landowners timely justice. This directive ensures enforceable timelines for statutory remedies under the 1894 Act, directly impacting thousands of pending claims across Maharashtra.

Gauhati High Court reinforces that compensation under the National Highway Act requires legally valid land titles. Village Council passes, even for agricultural purposes, do not establish title under Mizoram land laws, leaving landowners without remedy for acquisition. The ruling underscores the need for clear documentation in land disputes affecting infrastructure projects.

Andhra Pradesh High Court holds that police lack jurisdiction to summon parties in civil disputes, such as land acquisition compensation, without following statutory remedies under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013. The ruling reinforces that writ petitions under Article 226 are the appropriate recourse for aggrieved parties, preventing arbitrary police interference in civil matters.

Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that compensation for uprooted apple trees under the Harbans Singh Formula must reflect inflationary trends, ensuring fair valuation based on authenticated departmental records. The ruling sets a precedent for land acquisition disputes involving fruit-bearing trees, mandating inflation-adjusted compensation.

Bombay High Court rules that compensation awarded under the National Highways Act, 1956, is immune from TDS deductions due to the absolute tax exemption under Section 96 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. The ruling reinforces that arbitral awards under land acquisition laws are judgment-debts, shielding landowners from unilateral tax deductions.

The Supreme Court ruled that compensation for industrial land under the Land Acquisition Act, 2013 must be determined using comparable industrial sales or stamp duty rates, not residential sale deeds. This decision clarifies market value determination for industrial acquisitions, impacting landowners and acquiring authorities.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that landholders granted land under the Nautor Rules, 1968 are entitled to compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 when the state initiates acquisition proceedings, regardless of whether the land was formally resumed under the Rules. This affirms that restrictive grant conditions cannot override statutory compensation rights, protecting thousands of allottees from arbitrary denial of dues.

Punjab & Haryana High Court reinforces that a proforma respondent in a land acquisition appeal is entitled to the same enhanced compensation awarded to co-claimants, even if not a direct appellant. The ruling ensures joint claimants in land disputes receive uniform benefits under Order XLI Rule 4 CPC, preventing inequitable outcomes in execution of decrees.