Compensation under the 2013 Act must use 1 January 2014 as the market-value base date.

The State challenged orders in several writ petitions concerning compensation for lands acquired for the SIPCOT Oragadam Expansion Scheme.

The writ court had followed the Division Bench decision in Sri Venkateswara Educational Charitable Trust v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu and directed reconsideration of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”), using 1 January 2014 as the base date.

The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the State’s appeals against the Division Bench decision and confirmed that compensation was to be determined by reference to market value as on 1 January 2014.

1. Whether the landowners were entitled to have compensation under the 2013 Act determined using 1 January 2014 as the base date

2. Whether the State’s writ appeals could succeed after the Supreme Court confirmed the 1 January 2014 base date

The 2013 Act governed the compensation issue.

The Division Bench’s decision in Sri Venkateswara Educational Charitable Trust v. Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu established, as relevant to these appeals, that compensation was to be determined using 1 January 2014 as the base date.

The Supreme Court affirmed that approach in The Chairman and Managing Director, State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil Nadu Ltd. v. D. Vijayakumar, SLP(C) No. 10230 of 2023, and stated that the State could release the land and restore it to the landowners free from encumbrances if it found the acquisition not viable in the public interest.

The Supreme Court had dismissed the State’s challenge to the 1 January 2014 base date and held that the High Court had not erred in directing compensation under the 2013 Act on that basis.

As the issue in the present appeals was therefore settled, the Division Bench found no basis to interfere with the writ-court orders.

It left the State to take appropriate steps if it considered clarification necessary.

Respondents in W.A. Nos. 2527 of 2025 and 400 of 2026 were permitted to withdraw the amounts deposited by the appellants; there was no order as to costs.