Deputy Chief Engineer vs Manmohan

Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
1 FA-2398-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
nd
ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
FIRST APPEAL No. 2398 of 2024
DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
Versus
MANMOHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Malvi - Advocate for the appellant.
ORDER
This appeal under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has
been filed by the Railways being aggrieved by the award of the Reference Court
dated 21.03.2024 passed in MJC No.17 of 2022.
2. The principal amount, which was awarded by the Collector was
Rs.2,43,000/-, which has been enhanced to Rs.2,91,600/- by the Reference Court
and further benefit of a multiplier of 2.00 has been granted by the Reference Court
on the land. Admittedly, only land has been acquired and no assets standing or
attached to the land have been acquired.
3. So far as the increment of the principal amount of compensation from
Rs.2,43,000/- to Rs.2,91,600/- is concerned, it is seen by this Court that the
Reference Court has taken into consideration that the acquired land is on "Other
District Road" i.e. the main road approaching to village Jawar and the land being
on the main road, incremental value of 20% over and above what has been
assessed on the basis of circle rates, has been granted by the Reference Court.
4. This Court does not find any error of law nor any perversity in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
2 FA-2398-2024
aforesaid justification rendered by the Reference Court, whereby the Reference

Court has found that the land being on the main road, i.e. on "Other District Road"
the land loser would be entitled to an incremental value of 20% over and above the
circle/guideline rates, which were granted to the land loser by the Collector.
5. The award to that extent is, therefore, upheld and no reasons are made
out to entertain this appeal.
6. So far as the multiplying factor of 2.00 is concerned, the said issue has
recently been answered by this Court by a detailed order passed in FA No.2308 of
2024 in the following manner:-
13. The question that whether when the land has been acquired
by the State Government though the acquisition is for the project of
Central Government i.e. the Railway project then whether the
multiplication factor of 2.0 notified by the Central Government would
be applicable or not has been subjected to interpretation time and again
by various coordinate Benches of this Court Court as well as by a
Division Bench of this Court.
14. The aforesaid issue in the matter of Railways has already
been decided by a coordinate Bench of this Court in F.A. No.
1373/2023 (Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Vs. Sajruddin Ali
and others, in the following terms:-
"This appeal, under Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "Act of 2013"), has been filed
against the Award dated 31.03.2023 passed by Principal District
Judge, Sheopur (M.P.) in Land Acquisition Case No.
MJC/37/2022.
2. Facts necessary for disposal of this appeal, in short, are that
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
3 FA-2398-2024
certain lands have been acquired for the purpose of laying down
Meter Gauge in place of Narrow Gauge Railway Line. The lands,
under the ownership of various persons situated in villages
Bardhabujurg, Raipura & Dantarda Khurd, have been acquired.
From village Dantarda Khurd around 2.200 hectares, from village
Raipura 2.394 hectares and from village Bardhaburjurg about
17.555 hectares, in total 28.689 hectares of land was acquired under
the Act of 2013. The Award was passed by Land Acquisition
Officer on 08.10.2021. The matter was agitated under Section 64 of
the Act of 2013 and Reference Court has applied the factor of "2",
whereas according to appellant Reference Court should have
applied the factor of "1", as notified by the State Government.

3. In the present appeal, solitary ground has been raised by
appellant that in place of factor of "2", factor of "1" should have
been applied. By referring to Section 26 of the Act of 2013, it is
submitted by counsel for appellant that guidelines have been
provided under the aforesaid Section for determination of market
value of land by Collector. It is submitted that as per Section 26(2)
of the Act of 2013, the market value calculated as per sub-section
(1) shall be multiplied by a factor to be specified in the first
schedule. By referring to Section 3(e) of the Act of 2013, it is
submitted that since the land which has been acquired is situated in
the territory of State of Madhya Pradesh, therefore, Section 3(e)(i)
would apply and thus it is submitted that notification issued by the
State Government providing the factor "1" for multiplier as per
Section 26(2) of the Act of 2013, would apply. Thus, it is submitted
that Reference Court has wrongly applied the multiplier of "2" by
treating the factor as "2" as notified by the Central Government.
4. Per contra, appeal is vehemently opposed by counsel for
claimants. It is submitted that since lands were acquired for the
purpose of Union of India, therefore, Section 3(e)(v) would apply
and thus, the notification issued by the Central Government would
apply according to which multiplier/factor of "2" is applicable.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. Section 26 of the Act of 2013 reads as under:-
26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.
(1) The Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing
and determining the market value of the land, namely:-
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to
sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
4 FA-2398-2024
nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or

(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-
section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private
companies or for public private partnership projects, whichever is
higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be
the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11.
Explanation 1. - The average sale price referred to in clause (b)
shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the
agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near
village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three
years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be
made.
Explanation 2. - For determining the average sale price referred to
in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the
agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been
mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3. - While determining the market value under this
section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or
Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired
under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district
shall not be taken into consideration.
Explanation 4. - While determining the market value under this
section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or
Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector
is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be
discounted for the purposes of calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be
multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule.
(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2) cannot be determined for the reason that-
(a) the land is situated in such area where the transactions in land
are restricted by or under any other law for the time being in force
in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as mentioned in
clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar land are not available for
the immediately preceding three years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the Indian
Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate authority, the State
Government concerned shall specify the floor price or minimum
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
5 FA-2398-2024
price per unit area of the said land based on the price calculated in
the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of similar types of
land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:

Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares
to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired) as a
part compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case
shall exceed twenty-five per cent. of the value so calculated under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may
be:
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case compel
any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to take its
shares, the value of which is deductible in the value of the land
calculated under sub-section (1):
Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land
acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to
revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the
prevalent market rate in that area:
Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the
market value determined for acquisition of any land or property of
an educational institution established and administered by a
religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or
abrogate the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice.
Section 3(e) of the Act of 2013 reads as under:
3. Definitions.
- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-
(a) to (d) xxx xxx xxx
(e) "appropriate Government" means,-
(i) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the territory of, a
State, the State Government;
(ii) in relation to acquisition of land situated within a Union
territory (except Puducherry), the Central Government;
(iii) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the Union
territory of Puducherry, the Government of Union territory of
Puducherry;
(iv) in relation to acquisition of land for public purpose in more
than one State, the Central Government, in consultation with the
concerned State Governments or Union territories; and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
6 FA-2398-2024
(v) in relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the
Union as may be specified by notification, the Central Government:

Provided that in respect of a public purpose in a District for an area
not exceeding such as may be notified by the appropriate
Government, the Collector of such District shall be deemed to be
the appropriate Government; ......
7. The only controversy involved in the present case is that which
is the "appropriate Government", whether State Government or
Central Government?
8. The undisputed fact is that the entire land is situated within the
State of Madhya Pradesh and entire land has been acquired for the
benefit of Railways which is Union of India. It is clear from
Section 3(e)(i) that if the land is situated within the territory of the
State of Madhya Pradesh, then notification issued by the State
Government would apply. However, in the present case, although
the land is situated within the State of Madhya Pradesh but it has
been acquired for the purposes of Union. Therefore, as per Section
3(e)(v) of Act of 2013, notification issued by the Central
Government would apply. It is not the case of appellant that
Central Government has not notified the multiplier of "2".
Furthermore, Division Bench of this Court in the case of Badrilal
Dhakad and Others Versus Union of India and Others reported in
2022 SCC Online MP 280 has held as under:-
16. As per the definition under section 2(b) of the Act of 2013 the
State Government would be the appropriate Government in relation
to the acquisition of land situated within the territory of State. The
Central Government would be the appropriate government in
relation of acquisition of land situated within Union territory except
for Pondichery and in relation to acquisition of land for the public
purpose in more than one State, the Central Government shall
consult with the concerned State Government or the Union territory
and under section 2(e)(v) of the Act of 2013 in relation to the
acquisition of land for the purpose of the Union, as may be
specified by notification, the appropriate Government would be the
Central Government. Since the land of the petitioners is situated
within the State Government, therefore, the respondents are
treating State Government as appropriate Government and applying
the notification dated 29.9.2014 under section 26(2) of Act of 2013
which gave a cause of action to the petitioners to challenge the
validity of the said notification but if it is held that in this
acquisition the appropriate Government is the Central Government
then the notification issued by the Central Government dated
9.2.2016 would apply in which the multiplier is 2.00 (two) for the
rural area. As per 1st Schedule, the following components provided
in the table shall constitute the minimum compensation package to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
7 FA-2398-2024
be given to the landowners whose land is acquired. Serial no. 2 is
the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case
of rural areas and for which the appropriate government is required
to notify the factor based on the distance of the project from the
urban area. The Central Government has issued a notification
prescribing the factor 2.00(two) whereas State of M.P. by way of
impugned notification dated 29.9.2014 has fixed the multiplier
1.00(one) but the NHAI which is the instrumentality of the Central
Government, therefore, by virtue of 2(e)(v) of Act of 2013 the
Central Government shall be the appropriate Government, hence
the notification dated 9.2.2016 issued by the Central Government
would apply. In such a situation, the validity of the notification
issued by the State Government is not required to be examined or
adjudicated because the same is not applicable in the case of the
petitioners. Since the petitioners have already preferred appeals
before the Arbitrator u/s 3G(5), therefore, it is for the Arbitrator to
consider and decide the multiplier in view of the findings given
hereinabove instead of setting aside the award and remanding the
matter to the competent authority.

9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion
that Reference Court did not commit any mistake by applying the
multiplier of "2" as notified by the Central Government. No other
argument is advanced by counsel for appellant.
10. It is not out of place to mention here that the claimants have
also filed appeals for enhancement of compensation amount. Since
the question of factor is covered in all the appeals and the claimants
are satisfied with the factor of "2' which has been applied by
Reference Court and this Court has also come to a conclusion that
factor of "2" would apply for multiplier as provided under Section
26(2) of Act of 2013, therefore, by keeping the question of
determination of market value, as provided under Section 26(1) of
the Act of 2013 as challenged by the claimants, open, the Award
dated 31.03.2023 passed by Principal District Judge, Sheopur
(M.P.) in Land Acquisition Case No. MJC/37/2022 is hereby
affirmed so far as it relates to application of factor "2" for multiplier
as required under Section 26(2) of the Act of 2013.
11. With aforesaid observations, appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed."
15. The present appeal also raises the same and similar issue of
application of multiplying factor of 2.0 for land which has been
acquired for the purposes of Union. It has been held by the coordinate
Bench that as per Section 3(e)(v) of the Act of 2013, appropriate
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
8 FA-2398-2024
government in relation to acquisition of land for the purpose of Union

shall be Central Government and it has been held by coordinate Bench
of this court in the aforesaid judgement that even if acquisition is made
by the State but once the acquisition is made for the purposes of
railways, then the multiplying factor of 2.0 would be applicable. The
coordinate Bench applied the case of Badrilal Dhakad (supra) and held
it applicable for acquisitions for Railways also.
16. The Division Bench of this Court in batch of Writ Petitions
in the case of Badrilal Dhakad (supra) has held that for the acquisitions
made by an authority for purposes and projects of Central Government,
like construction of National Highways by National Highways
Authority of India (NHAI), the multiplication factor of 2.0 as per
notification dated 09.02.2016 would be applicable. The Division Bench
has held as under:-
"15. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification
dated 29.9.2014 issued by the Government of M.P. because the
same has been applied in their cases for the calculation of the
compensation. It is not in dispute that the Central Government has
appointed Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) as ‘the competent
authority for hearing the objection under section 3C of the NH Act
of 1956. The Central Government has acquired the land of
petitioners and others for NHAI for the construction of the national
highway. Under section 3A of the NH Act if the Central
Government is satisfied that for a public purpose any land is
required for the building, maintenance, management or operation of
a national highway or part thereof, it may, by notification in the
Official Gazette, declare its intention to acquire such land. The
competent authority appointed by the Central Government shall
cause the substance of the notification to be published in two local
newspapers, one of which will be in a vernacular language. The
national highway is a central Government project undertaken by the
NHAI for which the land situated in the State of M.P. has been
acquired, meaning thereby for the project of central Government
land situated in the State of M.P. are being acquired. In such a
situation who would be the appropriate Government under section
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
9 FA-2398-2024
2(e) of the Act of 2013. If the central Government is appropriate
then all the notifications issued by the Central Government would
apply in multiplier factor 2(two), hence in that situation the
petitioners have not required to challenge the validity of the
notification dated 9.2.2016 issued by the State Government
because the same would not apply.

16. As per the definition under section 2(b) of the Act of 2013 the
State Government would be the appropriate Government in relation
to the acquisition of land situated within the territory of State. The
Central Government would be the appropriate government in
relation of acquisition of land situated within Union territory except
for Pondichery and in relation to acquisition of land for the public
purpose in more than one State, the Central Government shall
consult with the concerned State Government or the Union territory
and under section 2(e)(v) of the Act of 2013 in relation to the
acquisition of land for the purpose of the Union, as may be
specified by notification, the appropriate Government would be the
Central Government. Since the land of the petitioners is situated
within the State Government, therefore, the respondents are
treating State Government as appropriate Government and applying
the notification dated 29.9.2014 under section 26(2) of Act of 2013
which gave a cause of action to the petitioners to challenge the
validity of the said notification but if it is held that in this
acquisition the appropriate Government is the Central Government
then the notification issued by the Central Government dated
9.2.2016 would apply in which the multiplier is 2.00(two) for the
st
rural area. As per 1 Schedule, the following components provided
in the table shall constitute the minimum compensation package to
be given to the landowners whose land is acquired. Serial no. 2 is
the factor by which the market value is to be multiplied in the case
of rural areas and for which the appropriate government is required
to notify the factor based on the distance of the project from the
urban area. The Central Government has issued a notification
prescribing the factor 2.00(two) whereas State of M.P. by way of
impugned notification dated 29.9.2014 has fixed the multiplier
1.00(one) but the NHAI which is the instrumentality of the Central
Government, therefore, by virtue of 2(e)(v) of Act of 2013 the
Central Government shall be the appropriate Government, hence
the notification dated 9.2.2016 issued by the Central Government
would apply. In such a situation, the validity of the notification
issued by the State Government is not required to be examined or
adjudicated because the same is not applicable in the case of the
petitioners. Since the petitioners have already preferred appeals
before the Arbitrator u/s 3G(5), therefore, it is for the Arbitrator to
consider and decide the multiplier in view of the findings given
hereinabove instead of setting aside the award and remanding the
matter to the competent authority."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
10 FA-2398-2024
17. Therefore, the law on this point is well settled that if the

acquisition is made for project of Railways which is a Central
Government organization then even if the acquisition is made by the
State Government for the purposes of the Central Government then the
multiplication factor of 2.0 for rural area would be applicable in terms
of notification dated 09.02.2026.
18. The clarification circular dated 14.12.2017 has been
considered in Review Petition filed by Central Government in case of
Badrilal Dhakad (supra), in RP No. 665 of 2022 (NHAI Vs. Badrilal) ,
decided on 14.10.2022). The said circular/Office Memorandum has
been discarded in the following terms :-
2. The present review petitions are filed solely on the ground thatNHAI
has failed to bring on record letter F.No. 13013/02/2016-LRD issued on
8.5.2017 (sic 14.12.2017) by the Government of India, Ministry of Rural
Development, Department of Land Resources, New Delhi to all the Chief
Secretaries/Administrators of all State/Union Territoriesclarifying the
position in respect of applicability of multiplying factor provided in First
Schedule to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement.
xx xx xx
5. In exercise of powers u/s. 30(2) of the Act of 2013, the Central
Government by way of Notification dated 13.2.2015 (sic 9.2.2016)
published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) has notified that in the
case of therural area the factor multiplier shall be 2 (two). When the
factor multiplier for rural area 2 (two) has been notified by the
Government of India by way of Gazette Notification for the land situated
in a rural area, then the Government of India by way of letter/circular
cannot modify the Notification without publishing in the official gazette.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
11 FA-2398-2024
It is not the case of the NHAI that the letter dated 9.2.2016 (sic

14.12.2017) has not been passed in the exercise of powers u/s. 30(2) of
the Act of 2013. Hence, this letter shall not supersede or dilute the effect
of the Notification dated 9.2.2016. Notification dated 9.2.2016 nowhere
distinguish that this shall apply only to the land situated in Union
Territory. Therefore, the ground on which the review is sought is wholly
misconceived.
19. Nothing turns in favour of the appellant on basis of Section
3 (e) that defines appropriate Government in the following manner :-
(e) “appropriate Government” means,—
(i) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the territory of, a State,
the State Government;
(ii) in relation to acquisition of land situated within a Union territory
(except Puducherry), the Central Government;
(iii) in relation to acquisition of land situated within the Union territory of
Puducherry, the Government of Union territory of Puducherry;
(iv) in relation to acquisition of land for public purpose in more than one
State, the Central Government, in consultation with the concerned State
Governments or Union territories; and
(v) in relation to the acquisition of land for the purpose of the Union as
may be specified by notification, the Central Government:
Provided that in respect of a public purpose in a District for an area not
exceeding such as may be notified by the appropriate Government, the
Collector of such District shall be deemed to be the appropriate
Government;
2 0 . The circular/OM dated 14.12.2017 has been issued only
reading the definition upto Section 3 (e) (ii), and conveniently omitting
to read Section 3(e)(v), as per which for acquisitions of land for
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
12 FA-2398-2024
purposes of Union, the Central Government shall be the appropriate

Government. Railways is a purpose of the Union. The expression in 3
(e) (v) "purpose of the Union as may be specified by notification" shall
mean the purpose as shall be notified in the notification declaring
intention to acquire under section 11 of the LARR Act.
21. The counsel for Union of India further relied on a notification
dated 29.9.2014 issued by the State Government of Madhya Pradesh,
as per which a notification has been issued by Government of Madhya
Pradesh, notifying the Collector of District as "appropriate
government" for the of the LARR Act, in respect of public purpose in a
district, for area not exceeding Ten Thousand hectares. The said
notification is as under :-
Bhopal, the 29th September 2014
No. F 16-15(1)-2014-VII-Sec. 2A- In exercise of the powers
conferred by the proviso to clause (e) of Section 3 of the Right to
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No. 30 of 2013), the
State Government hereby notifies that the Collector shall be
deemed to be the appropriate Government for the purpose of this
Act, in respect of a public purpose in a district for an area not
exceeding ten thousand hectares.
By order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh
22. By this notification, the Collector shall exercise the powers of
appropriate Government in cases where the land area being acquired is
less than 10000 hectares. This hardly helps the appellant, because in
this case, what is to be seen that where the land is acquired for purpose
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
13 FA-2398-2024
of Union, then irrespective of the fact that acquisition is undertaken by

which Government, the appropriate Government shall be the Central
Government. This is the plain meaning of Section 3 (e) (v), as held by
the Division Bench in Badrilal Dhakad (supra).
23. This Court therefore, is not persuaded to take any different view.
It arrives at a conclusion that the multiplication of 2.0 was applicable in
the present case. But now it is required to be seen that whether the
multiplication factor of 2.0 has been correctly applied by the Reference
Court in the present case or not. It is seen that in the present case the
area of land acquired is very minuscule that is 0.027 hectare which
would be only around 270 Sq. Meter. On the aforesaid land a house
was constructed and initially the Valuation Committee had valued the
land as Rs.19,537/- and the house at Rs.43,27,344/-. Thereafter
objections were made by the land losers before the Collector and the
Collector had got a re-evaluation of the land and house carried out and
as per the re-evaluation report, the house was valued at Rs.59,55,603/-
and the land was valued at Rs.2,97,000/-.
24. Therefore, out of the total compensation awarded by the Collector,
the major portion is valuation of the house which is around Rs.59.55
lakh and the valuation of land is only about Rs.2.97 lakh.
25. The Reference Court has awarded 2.0 multiplication factor on the
valuation of house as well as the valuation of land and this is something
which is to be adjudicated by this Court.
26. The LARR Act, 2013 provides in Section 26 the methodology
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
14 FA-2398-2024
determination of market value of land by the Collector. As per Section

27 the determination of compensation has to be by calculating the
amount of compensation of land and also all assets attached to the land.
Section 28 contains parameters to be considered by the Collector.
Section 29 relates to determination of things attached to the land or
building and Section 30 relates to award of solatium. The relevant
provisions are as under :-
"26. Determination of market value of land by Collector.–(1) The
Collector shall adopt the following criteria in assessing and
determining the market value of the land, namely:—
(a) the market value, if any, specified in the Indian Stamp Act,
1899 (2 of 1899) for the registration of sale deeds or agreements to
sell, as the case may be, in the area, where the land is situated; or
(b) the average sale price for similar type of land situated in the
nearest village or nearest vicinity area; or
(c) consented amount of compensation as agreed upon under sub-
section (2) of section 2 in case of acquisition of lands for private
companies or for public private partnership projects, +
whichever is higher:
Provided that the date for determination of market value shall be
the date on which the notification has been issued under section 11.
Explanation 1.—The average sale price referred to in clause (b)
shall be determined taking into account the sale deeds or the
agreements to sell registered for similar type of area in the near
village or near vicinity area during immediately preceding three
years of the year in which such acquisition of land is proposed to be
made.
Explanation 2.—For determining the average sale price referred to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
15 FA-2398-2024
in Explanation 1, one-half of the total number of sale deeds or the

agreements to sell in which the highest sale price has been
mentioned shall be taken into account.
Explanation 3.—While determining the market value under this
section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or
Explanation 2, any price paid as compensation for land acquired
under the provisions of this Act on an earlier occasion in the district
shall not be taken into consideration.
Explanation 4.—While determining the market value under this
section and the average sale price referred to in Explanation 1 or
Explanation 2, any price paid, which in the opinion of the Collector
is not indicative of actual prevailing market value may be
discounted for the purposes of calculating market value.
(2) The market value calculated as per sub-section (1) shall be
multiplied by a factor to be specified in the First Schedule.
(3) Where the market value under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)
cannot be determined for the reason that—
(a) the land is situated in such area where the
transactions in land are restricted by or under any other
law for the time being in force in that area; or
(b) the registered sale deeds or agreements to sell as
mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (1) for similar
land are not available for the immediately preceding
three years; or
(c) the market value has not been specified under the
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 (2 of 1899) by the appropriate
authority,
the State Government concerned shall specify the floor price or
minimum price per unit area of the said land based on the price
calculated in the manner specified in sub-section (1) in respect of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
16 FA-2398-2024
similar types of land situated in the immediate adjoining areas:

Provided that in a case where the Requiring Body offers its shares
to the owners of the lands (whose lands have been acquired) as a
part compensation, for acquisition of land, such shares in no case
shall exceed twenty-five per cent, of the value so calculated under
sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) as the case may
be:
Provided further that the Requiring Body shall in no case compel
any owner of the land (whose land has been acquired) to take its
shares, the value of which is deductible in the value of the land
calculated under sub-section (1):
Provided also that the Collector shall, before initiation of any land
acquisition proceedings in any area, take all necessary steps to
revise and update the market value of the land on the basis of the
prevalent market rate in that area:
Provided also that the appropriate Government shall ensure that the
market value determined for acquisition of any land or property of
an educational institution established and administered by a
religious or linguistic minority shall be such as would not restrict or
abrogate the right to establish and administer educational
institutions of their choice.
27. Determination of amount of compensation.–The Collector
having determined the market value of the land to be acquired shall
calculate the total amount of compensation to be paid to the land
owner (whose land has been acquired) by including all assets
attached to the land.
28. Parameters to be considered by Collector in determination of
award.–In determining the amount of compensation to be awarded
for land acquired under this Act, the Collector shall take into
consideration—
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
17 FA-2398-2024
firstly, the market value as determined under section 26 and the

award amount in accordance with the First and Second Schedules;
secondly, the damage sustained by the person interested, by reason
of the taking of any standing crops and trees which may be on the
land at the time of the Collector's taking possession thereof;
thirdly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at
the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason
of severing such land from his other land;
fourthly, the damage (if any) sustained by the person interested, at
the time of the Collector's taking possession of the land, by reason
of the acquisition injuriously affecting his other property, movable
or immovable, in any other manner, or his earnings;
fifthly, in consequence of the acquisition of the land by the
Collector, the person interested is compelled to change his
residence or place of business, the reasonable expenses (if any)
incidental to such change;
sixthly, the damage (if any) bona fide resulting from diminution of
the profits of the land between the time of the publication of the
declaration under section 19 and the time of the Collector's taking
possession of the land; and
seventhly, any other ground which may be in the interest of equity,
justice and beneficial to the affected families.
29. Determination of value of things attached to land or building.–
(1) The Collector in determining the market value of the building
and other immovable property or assets attached to the land or
building which are to be acquired, use the services of a competent
engineer or any other specialist in the relevant field, as may be
considered necessary by him.
(2) The Collector for the purpose of determining the value of trees
and plants attached to the land acquired, use the services of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
18 FA-2398-2024
experienced persons in the field of agriculture, forestry,

horticulture, sericulture, or any other field, as may be considered
necessary by him.
(3) The Collector for the purpose of assessing the value of the
standing crops damaged during the process of land acquisition,
may use the services of experienced persons in the field of
agriculture as may be considered necessary by him.
30. Award of solatium.–(1) The Collector having determined the
total compensation to be paid, shall, to arrive at the final award,
impose a “Solatium” amount equivalent to one hundred per cent. of
the compensation amount. Explanation.—For the removal of
doubts it is hereby declared that solatium amount shall be in
addition to the compensation payable to any person whose land has
been acquired.
(2) The Collector shall issue individual awards detailing the
particulars of compensation payable and the details of payment of
the compensation as specified in the First Schedule.
(3) In addition to the market value of the land provided under
section 26, the Collector shall, in every case, award an amount
calculated at the rate of twelve per cent. per annum on such market
value for the period commencing on and from the date of the
publication of the notification of the Social Impact Assessment
study under sub-section (2)of section 4, in respect of such land, till
the date of the award of the Collector or the date of taking
possession of the land, whichever is earlier."
27. The notification dated 09.02.2016 has been issued by the
Central Government which is in the following terms and is issued
under section 30(2) of LARR Act :-
"S.O. 425(E). In exercise of the powers conferred by column no. 3
of serial no. 2 of the First Schedule read with sub-section (2) of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:67290
19 FA-2398-2024
section 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (No.
30 of 2013), the Central Government, hereby, notifies that in case
of rural areas, the factor by which the market value is to be
multiplied shall be 2.00 (two)."
28. The first Schedule to Section 30 (2) contains entry (2),
which provides that the factor which the market value is to be
multiplied in case of rural area would be 1.00 to 2.00 based on the
distance of project from urban areas, as may be notified by the
appropriate Government. The Central Government has notified a
uniform multiplication factor of 2.0 irrespective of distance from urban
areas and now it is to be seen by this Court that whether that
multiplication factor though was applicable, but whether it has been
correctly operated by the Reference Court."
7. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to entertain the present
appeal, as both the increments granted by the Reference Court, i.e. in the matter of
principal compensation, as well as in the matter of the multiplying factor have
been found to be proper by this Court.
8. ​ Consequently, admission is declined and the appeal is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
rj

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Signing time: 9/3/2026
6:06:29 PM