Topic
The Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 governs land acquisition in India, ensuring just and timely compensation to landowners while mandating transparency and social impact assessments.
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.
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.
Bombay High Court rules that land acquisition proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 lapse if neither possession is taken nor compensation paid by the cut-off date of 01.01.2014, entitling landowners to compensation under the new Act. This judgment reinforces landowners' rights and sets a critical precedent for pending compensation claims under Section 24.
Allahabad High Court rules that land acquisition proceedings under the repealed Land Acquisition Act, 1894 are invalid if Section 4 notifications were published after 01.01.2014, regardless of the notification date. The court directed recalculation of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013, reinforcing the publication date as the decisive factor for initiation of proceedings.
Karnataka High Court reinforces that landowners excluded from partial awards under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, are entitled to compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 if the award amount was not deposited. The ruling clarifies that the proviso to Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act operates as a safeguard, ensuring fair compensation even in cases of procedural lapses by authorities.
Karnataka High Court clarifies that land acquisition under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 lapses only if compensation remains unpaid AND lawful possession is not taken. Mere treasury deposit does not suffice, and once possession is taken, land vests absolutely in the State under Section 16, barring divesting even if earlier proceedings lapse. This ruling impacts landowners and authorities in ongoing acquisition disputes.
MP High Court rules that revenue records demonstrating irrigated land status override the Land Acquisition Officer’s barren land classification, entitling landowners to higher compensation. The judgment reinforces reliance on documentary evidence over administrative discretion in land acquisition disputes.
Bombay HC rules that land acquisition proceedings automatically lapse under Section 11A of the 1894 Act if no award is declared within two years, even if the land is later developed. The owner retains rights under the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013, reinforcing constitutional protections under Article 300-A against procedural delays.
Telangana High Court rules that lapsed land acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013 must be referred to a civil court under Section 64 for adjudication of compensation. The judgment reinforces natural justice principles, ensuring landowners receive fair compensation even in delayed acquisitions.
Bombay High Court reaffirms that landowners under the Right to Fair Compensation Act 2013 cannot be compelled to accept Floor Space Index (FSI) or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) as compensation. The ruling mandates monetary compensation as a statutory right, reinforcing landowner autonomy in land acquisition disputes.
Uttarakhand High Court rules that writ petitions under Article 226 are inadmissible for land acquisition compensation disputes involving contested facts, mandating statutory remedy under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013. The decision reinforces the Alternative Remedy Doctrine, impacting landowners challenging compensation awards.
Bombay High Court holds that delayed payment of compensation after land acquisition violates Article 300A; mandates immediate payment with interest and systemic reform.
Telangana High Court rules that Land Acquisition Reference Courts lack jurisdiction to implead parties suo motu under the Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013, setting aside an award for procedural impropriety.