Admissions by the acquiring authority’s witness can support enhanced land compensation based on market value.

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

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

The respondent accepted the amount under protest and sought enhancement before the Reference Court.

The Principal District Judge, Salem, fixed compensation at Rs. 64,584 per sq. metre, relying in part on valuation evidence and admissions by the petitioners’ witness, and also awarded Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of residential amenities.

The petitioners challenged that decision under Article 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Reference Court erred in enhancing the compensation to Rs. 64,584 per sq. metre, including by relying on a post-notification sale deed and the evidence of the petitioners’ witness.

2. Whether the Reference Court’s additional award of Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of residential amenities warranted interference.

The acquisition was made under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, including Section 15(2), which was the basis for the acquisition notification.

In determining market value, the Reference Court considered sale exemplars and evidence concerning the acquired land’s location and value; the High Court upheld its reliance on admissions made by the petitioners’ witness, observing that an opposing party’s admission was the best available evidence in the circumstances.

Although the petitioners invoked the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and argued that the belt system should have been applied, the judgment does not identify a specific provision of that Act or cite a precedent as the basis for its decision.

The High Court found that the Reference Court had considered the post-notification sale deed while also relying on the petitioners’ own witness, who admitted that land values in the vicinity were about Rs. 6,000 per sq. ft. and acknowledged the acquired land’s locational advantages.

In light of that evidence, the High Court found no error in fixing the market value at Rs. 64,584 per sq. metre, notwithstanding the petitioners’ objections to the sale deed and the Reference Court’s failure to apply a belt system.

It also found that the additional award for loss of residential amenities was supported by evidence and reasoned findings.

The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed; no costs were awarded.