#RFCTLARR Act

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.

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.

Bombay High Court's Nagpur Bench upholds land acquisition for a Dr. Ambedkar mural, ruling that beautification and development of public spaces constitute 'public purpose' under the RFCTLARR Act. The judgment reinforces procedural compliance even after ordinance lapse, impacting landowners and government acquisition projects.

Gauhati High Court rules that land acquisitions for pipeline projects under the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act must follow the compensation framework of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The judgment ensures landowners receive fair compensation as per the 2015 Removal of Difficulties Order, impacting all right-of-user acquisitions by government entities.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that authorities cannot demolish or mark properties under land acquisition without strict compliance with the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The judgment reinforces that bypassing statutory due process violates constitutional rights under Articles 14, 21, and 300A, setting a precedent for property owners facing arbitrary state action.

Andhra Pradesh HC rules that compensation under the RFCTLARR Act must be calculated based on market value as of the preliminary notification date, not suppressed rates. The court also invalidated consent obtained through misrepresentation of compensation structure, holding it void due to fraud. Landowners facing acquisition disputes can now challenge compensation awards based on post-notification market fluctuations or fraudulent consent.