Tenants in acquired structures entitled to rehabilitation compensation under 2013 land acquisition law, Bombay High Court rules

The petitioners were tenants in structures acquired by the Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Ltd. (DFCCIL) for the Dedicated Freight Corridor Project at Alibag, District Raigad.

The Deputy Commissioner (Rehabilitation), Konkan Division, allowed the petitioners’ appeals on 16 June 2022 and held them eligible for rehabilitation compensation; DFCCIL’s review applications were rejected.

Thereafter, the competent authority passed a reasoned order dated 6 November 2025 determining compensation of Rs. 14,17,000 for each petitioner.

DFCCIL and the competent authority initially directed the concerned bank to transfer Rs. 10,00,000 to each petitioner, but DFCCIL subsequently objected that the petitioners, being tenants, were entitled only to three months’ notice and Rs. 10,000 as shifting allowance under its 2015 Entitlement Matrix.

Despite the competent authority’s clarification that the petitioners’ eligibility and entitlement had been approved under the applicable statutory framework, DFCCIL did not disburse the compensation, leading to the writ petitions.

Whether tenants of acquired structures fall within the definition of “affected family” and are entitled to rehabilitation and resettlement compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013?

Whether DFCCIL could rely on its 2015 Entitlement Matrix, based on its 2012 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan, to deny compensation determined under the Act of 2013?

Whether the Government Resolution dated 22 May 2018 justified restricting the petitioners’ compensation to the amount payable to the owners of the structures?

Whether the petitioners were entitled to statutory interest for delayed payment of the compensation?

The Court applied Section 3(c)(ii) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which expressly includes tenants, including tenants under any form of tenancy, within the definition of an “affected family” where their primary source of livelihood is affected by acquisition.

Under Section 31, the Collector must pass a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Award for each affected family in accordance with the entitlements in the Second Schedule.

The Second Schedule provides rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements in addition to the compensation under the First Schedule.

Administrative instructions or an internal entitlement matrix cannot override statutory rights under the Act of 2013.

Further, Section 108 recognises the affected family’s right to opt for better compensation and rehabilitation benefits where more beneficial relief is available.

Under Section 80, delayed payment attracts interest at 9% per annum for the first year from the date of possession and 15% per annum thereafter.

The Court held that the petitioners undisputedly occupied the acquired structures as tenants and therefore fell within Section 3(c)(ii) of the 2013 Act.

Their eligibility had already been conclusively determined by the appellate authority, and DFCCIL’s review applications had failed.

The competent authority subsequently applied the statutory scheme and quantified the compensation at Rs. 14,17,000 per petitioner.

DFCCIL’s reliance on its 2015 Entitlement Matrix and the 2012 Rehabilitation and Resettlement Plan was rejected because those internal or administrative arrangements could not prevail over the statutory entitlements under the Act of 2013.

The Court also held that the State Government’s 2018 Resolution could not be used to deny the higher compensation available under the Act, particularly because the Resolution itself recognised that the higher statutory relief would prevail.

Given DFCCIL’s belated and inconsistent objection—after it had jointly instructed the bank to disburse a substantial portion of the compensation—the Court found the delay unjustified and awarded statutory interest under Section 80.

The Court directed that each petitioner be paid Rs. 14,17,000, together with interest under Section 80 of the 2013 Act—9% per annum for the first year from the date of possession and 15% per annum thereafter.

Since the principal amounts had already been deposited by DFCCIL, they were ordered to be disbursed within two weeks.

The competent authority was directed to calculate the interest within four weeks, communicate the calculation to DFCCIL within one further week, and DFCCIL was directed to deposit the interest amount within two weeks thereafter; the competent authority was then to disburse the interest to the petitioners within one week.

Rule was made absolute in those terms.