Acquisition authority witness admissions can justify enhanced compensation when they establish prevailing market value.

The petitioners acquired part of the respondents’ land under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, for construction of a road overbridge.

Following a notification under Section 15(2) dated 7 December 2011, the Land Acquisition Officer made an award on 30 April 2021, fixing compensation at Rs.26,910 per sq. metre.

The respondents accepted the amount under protest and sought a reference.

The Principal District Judge, Salem, enhanced compensation to Rs.64,584 per sq. metre and awarded an additional Rs.1,00,000 for three years’ loss of residence amenities.

The acquiring authorities challenged that order under Article 227, disputing the valuation and the Reference Court’s reliance on post-acquisition evidence.

1. Whether the Reference Court’s enhancement of compensation to Rs.64,584 per sq. metre, including reliance on post-notification evidence and the acquiring authorities’ witness’s admissions, warranted interference under Article 227

2. Whether the additional award of Rs.1,00,000 for loss of residence amenities was supported by the evidence and should be set aside

The acquisition proceeded under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, including Section 15(2), and the challenge was brought under Article 227 of the Constitution

The Court accepted the Reference Court’s approach of assessing market value from the evidence on record, including relevant valuation material and admissions by the acquiring authorities’ witness; it observed that an admission by the opposing party is the best available evidence

The judgment cites no precedent and does not set out a separate statutory formula for valuation.

The Court found that the Reference Court had considered the acquired land’s location and advantages, the valuation material, and the evidence of R.W.1, who admitted that land values in the area were about Rs.6,000 per sq. ft. and acknowledged the site’s locational advantages.

Although the authorities objected to reliance on Ex.C2 as a post-notification document and argued that the Reference Court had not followed the belt system, the Court considered the valuation to be supported by the witness’s admissions and the record.

It likewise found evidentiary support for the additional award relating to loss of residence amenities.

The civil revision petition was dismissed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed.