01Facts
The claimants’ lands were acquired under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, for widening a highway.
¶ 1–6 · pp. 37–40The Land Acquisition Officer considered 236 sale deeds but relied on one data sale to fix compensation at ₹100 per sq. ft. for Ekkadu Village and ₹320 per sq. ft. for Tiruvallur Village.
¶ 1–6 · pp. 37–40On reference, the courts enhanced compensation, relying on a sale deed reflecting ₹935 per sq. ft.; in some cases, compensation was fixed at ₹675 per sq. ft.
¶ 1–6 · pp. 37–40The State challenged the enhancements, while certain landowners sought the higher ₹935 rate.
¶ 1–6 · pp. 37–40The revisions concerned awards made in December 2013.
¶ 1–6 · pp. 37–4002Issues
i.1. Whether compensation for the acquisitions was to be determined under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, rather than the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
¶ 9, 14–15, 26 · pp. 41–44, 55–56ii.2. Whether the Reference Court was justified in relying on the sale deed reflecting ₹935 per sq. ft., and whether similarly placed claimants awarded ₹675 per sq. ft. were entitled to the same rate.
¶ 7–8, 16, 27–30 · pp. 40–41, 44–45, 56–59iii.3. Whether the multiplier, development-cost deductions, solatium, additional compensation and interest had been correctly determined.
¶ 10–13, 17, 31–38, 44 · pp. 42–43, 59–65, 67–6803Law Applied
Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition Laws (Revival of Operation, Amendment and Validation) Act, 2019, made the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 applicable to determination of compensation under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act; the Supreme Court’s decision in G. Mohan Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2022) 12 SCC 696, supported the validity and effect of the 2019 Act.
¶ 26 · pp. 55–56 · ¶ 43 · pp. 66–67Section 26(1)(b) of the 2013 Act permits consideration of average sale prices for similar lands in the nearest village or vicinity; Sections 27 and 30 address compensation for assets and solatium, while Section 30(3) provides additional market value and Section 80 provides interest for delayed payment.
¶ 27, 31–33 · pp. 56–61The Court applied G.O. (Ms.) No. 300, dated 20 September 2017, to the multiplier and relied on Nelson Fernandes v. Special Land Acquisition Officer, (2007) 9 SCC 447, and C.R. Nagaraja Shetty v. Land Acquisition Officer, (2009) 11 SCC 75, for the principle that development deductions are not warranted for road or bypass acquisitions that require no comparable internal development.
¶ 35–41 · pp. 61–66It also applied Ali Mohammad Beigh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, (2017) 4 SCC 717, against differential compensation for similarly situated landowners without valid reasons.
¶ 35–41 · pp. 61–66Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 Section 15Section 21
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 Section 26Section 27Section 30Section 80Section 84Section 114
General Clauses Act, 1897 Section 6
04Reasoning
The Court rejected the State’s argument that compensation should be assessed under the 1894 Act, holding that the 2019 validating legislation applied the 2013 Act to these proceedings.
¶ 26, 42–43 · pp. 55–56, 66–67The Officer had given generic reasons for rejecting 235 sale deeds, and the State’s selected data sale was not even produced before the Reference Court.
¶ 28–29 · pp. 57–58By contrast, the claimants’ sale deed reflected the higher value and was within 1.6 km of the acquired lands; the Court therefore found no basis to displace its use.
¶ 28–29 · pp. 57–58It also found no reason to maintain the ₹675 rate for otherwise similarly placed claimants, and applied the ₹935 rate uniformly.
¶ 30, 40 · pp. 58–59, 65–66The Court upheld the 1.25 multiplier and rejected development deductions, but accepted that additional market value should not be calculated on solatium.
¶ 34–39, 44 · pp. 61–65, 67–6805Holding
The State’s civil revisions were partly allowed, and the claimants’ revisions were partly allowed, except CRP Nos. 774 and 775 of 2021 and 1396 and 1397 of 2020, which were dismissed as settled out of court.
¶ 45 · pp. 68–69The Court directed a uniform market value of ₹935 per sq. ft.; confirmed compensation for buildings and structures; applied a 1.25 multiplier; and awarded 12% additional compensation per annum, 100% solatium, and interest at 9% for the first year and 15% thereafter, subject to the dates and calculation terms stated in the order.
¶ 45(i)–(vii) · pp. 68–69Amounts already paid or deposited are to be deducted, and the balance deposited within 12 weeks.
¶ 45(i)–(vii) · pp. 68–69Original Court PDF
E.D.SUNDARAMURTHY,vsThe Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition),
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
