#reference court

Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed multiple appeals challenging enhanced compensation awards under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The court upheld the reference court's valuation methodology, emphasizing the use of market value, exemplar sale deeds, and urban potential factors in determining fair compensation.

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 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 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.

The Bombay High Court mandates that compensation for acquired land must follow the market value established in prior reference awards, ensuring consistency across similar acquisitions. It further holds that valuation of trees - including hapus mangoes and jujubee - must be supported by concrete evidence such as sale records or expert appraisal, rejecting speculative or arbitrary estimates. This ruling directly impacts claimants, land acquisition officers, and reference courts across Maharashtra.

The Bombay High Court set aside a land acquisition award after the Reference Court wrongly dismissed valid sale deeds as mere agreements to sell, undermining the claimant’s evidence of market value. This ruling reinforces that registered sale deeds must be treated as conclusive proof of market rate unless proven fraudulent, directly impacting how compensation is calculated across Maharashtra’s acquisition cases.

The Punjab & Haryana High Court ruled that a final award in a prior land acquisition case under the same notification and purpose serves as a valid benchmark for determining market value, especially when superior sale instances are either non-comparable or undocumented. This holding ensures consistency in compensation determination and prevents arbitrary valuation discrepancies.

Bombay High Court rules that courts must refrain from adjudicating limitation objections under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, leaving such disputes exclusively to arbitrators. This decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s precedent in SBI General Insurance v. Krish Spinning, emphasizing legislative intent to limit judicial interference in arbitration proceedings and expedite dispute resolution.

Bombay High Court holds that prior judicial determinations of market value for identical acquisitions must be followed unless demonstrably erroneous.

Bombay High Court holds that landowners cannot withdraw full deposited compensation when acquisition award is challenged; proportionality and pending appeals govern withdrawal.

Punjab and Haryana High Court holds that prior acquisition awards in the same revenue estate must be considered for market value determination under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.