Land acquisition: India - Revision history

Jyoti: /* Defence personnel, properties of */

2026-09-09T22:25:07Z

‎Defence personnel, properties of

Jyoti: /* Land can be acquired only after full compensation is paid */

2025-04-08T20:26:33Z

‎Land can be acquired only after full compensation is paid

Jyoti: /* Compensation */

2025-01-15T19:56:34Z

‎Compensation

Jyoti: /* Court rulings */

2024-12-31T18:07:45Z

‎Court rulings

Jyoti: /* Court rulings */

2024-05-19T13:03:17Z

‎Court rulings

Jyoti: /* 2020: SC order paves way for faster acquisition, reduced litigation */

2023-11-19T20:01:04Z

‎2020: SC order paves way for faster acquisition, reduced litigation

Jyoti: /* Administrative charges */

2021-09-26T14:54:01Z

‎Administrative charges

Jyoti: /* Court rulings */

2020-10-16T00:06:02Z

‎Court rulings

Jyoti: /* Defence personnel, properties of */

2018-12-17T07:47:52Z

‎Defence personnel, properties of

Jyoti: /* SC: Can’t quash acquisition if owners delay accepting compensation */

2018-06-08T07:13:47Z

‎SC: Can’t quash acquisition if owners delay accepting compensation

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:25, 9 September 2026
Line 308:		Line 308:

	The judge also pointed the acquired properties had been utilized for industrial and commercial purposes “which is against the purpose for which the land had been originally acquired.“ He then directed CMDA and other authorities to reconvey the lands to the blood relatives of the freedom fighter within two months.		The judge also pointed the acquired properties had been utilized for industrial and commercial purposes “which is against the purpose for which the land had been originally acquired.“ He then directed CMDA and other authorities to reconvey the lands to the blood relatives of the freedom fighter within two months.
		+
		+	=Delays in payment of land compensation=
		+	==Pay At Hiked Rate Or Return Land: SC==
		+	[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=28_07_2026_009_007_cap_TOI Dhananjay.Mahapatra, July 28, 2026: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	New Delhi : Already facing a fiscal crisis, Tamil Nadu Monday found itself in a difficult situation when Supreme Court ordered it to either return 970 acres of land it had acquired in 2009-10 for establishment of industries or pay compensation to landowners at the market rate as of Jan 1, 2014.
		+
		+	Appearing for State Industries Promotion Corporation of TN (SIPCOT), senior advocates A M Singhvi and Prashanto Sen told a bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V Mohana that govt is ready to pay Rs 21 crore as per the earlier procedure. However, senior advocate Arvind Nayar, appearing for a landowner’s trust, said though the acquisition process began in 2009-10, no award was passed, thereby rendering the process incomplete.
		+
		+	Nayar said TN govt has been sitting on the land for nearly two decades and not paid a penny as compensation to landowners.
		+
		+	“The Madras HC found that since the central law on payment of compensation for acquisition of land had come into force, the cutoff date would be Jan 1, 2014.”Singhvi said if Jan 1, 2014, was made the cutoff date, the compensation amount would increase from Rs 21 crore to more than Rs 180 crore and impose a heavy burden on the state’s finances.
		+
		+	But SC said, “When you acquire land, you must be prepared to pay adequate compensation to the landowners. Why should they suffer because of govt’s inaction? You wanted land for industries, so you pay compensation at market rate.”
		+	Singhvi then requested SC to limit the relief of higher compensation to the 10 petitioners who had approached the court. But the bench said if the state finds it difficult to pay compensation as directed, it would have to return the land to owners in six weeks.
		+
		+	[[Category:Defence\|LLAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources\|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Government\|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]

	=Expenditure of government on compensation=		=Expenditure of government on compensation=

@@ Line 260: / Line 260: @@
 Kolkata : The Calcutta high court has said that the West Bengal government cannot acquire land until compensation has been paid in full.
  Justice Bibek Chaudhuri made it clear that “Section 38 of the 2013 Act creates a bar against taking possession of the acquired land before payment of the entire compensation amount” and ordered status quo on a possession dispute till December 15. The land was acquired to construct a bypass connecting Chanchal to NH81.
@@ Line 265: / Line 266: @@
  The landowner argued in the HC that in accordance with Section 38 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, no acquisition could be made before payment of compensation. He said if the compensation was disputed, possession should remain with him. The state said the compensation was in the process of being paid. The HC will hear the case again in December.
-[[Category:Defence|LLAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+==Vexatious litigation, creation of third-party rights after the acquisition/ SC==
-LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
+[https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=21_03_2025_101_023_cap_TOI Dhananjay Mahapatra, March 21, 2025: ''The Times of India'']
-[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
-LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Government|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
-LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
-LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
-LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Defence|LLAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+New Delhi : Frowning at vexatious litigation relating to land acquisition, which delays projects for decades, Supreme Court Thursday ruled that when a govt acquires land for public purposes using its sovereign powers, it cannot be frustrated by creation of third-party rights after the acquisition.
-LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+A bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar said even a public body for whom an acquisition was done can’t give the land to someone through a private agreement as only govt has the power to withdraw acquisition for the entire land, or a portion of it.
-LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Government|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+ Litigation relating to acquired land, mainly because of creation of third-party rights, has been a key factor for delay in execution of many projects, especially national highways. This ruling may help ease the impediments caused by post-acquisition litigation.
-LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
+ The case that warranted the ruling pertained to acquisition of 33 acres abutting Narela-Bawana Road to enable Delhi Agricultural Marketing Board to establish its grain market. The acquisition notification was issued in Oct 30, 1963 and the award determining compensation issued on Jan 10, 1986. When a woman claimed ownership over a portion of the land, the Board chairman surreptitiously entered into a private agreement with her and agreed to release half of the claimed land to her while permitting her to claim compensation for the other half.
-[[Category:India|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
-LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
-LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Defence|LLAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+[[Category:Defence|LLAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Government|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+[[Category:Government|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+[[Category:India|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]

@@ Line 138: / Line 138: @@
 Future cases of inadequate NHA compensation under Section 34 leave landowners (mostly poor farmers and agriculturists) and lower courts in a bind. For landowners, SC has ruled a ‘limited right’ and ‘limited remedy’ to ‘cure’ awards. Lower courts are hamstrung by a lakshman rekha.
-[[Category:Defence|LLAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+==Delayed compensation: Pay current mkt rate if land/ SC==
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Government|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+[[Category:Government|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:India|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+[[Category:India|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
-[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
+[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]

@@ Line 150: / Line 150: @@
 =Court rulings=
 ==Seven procedural rights of landowners under Article 300A==
 [https://epaper.indiatimes.com/article-share?article=17_05_2024_028_008_cap_TOI  AmitAnand Choudhary, May 17, 2024: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 245: / Line 264: @@
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIALAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]

@@ Line 150: / Line 150: @@
 =Court rulings=
 ==SC: Can’t quash acquisition if owners delay accepting compensation==
 [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F02%2F12&entity=Ar00804&sk=AFC64E77&mode=text  AmitAnand Choudhary, February 12, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
@@ Line 221: / Line 234: @@
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
 [[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
 LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:54, 26 September 2021
Line 106:		Line 106:

	“The project executing entities of the ministry have been advised to restrict the payment of administrative charges up to 2.5% of the compensation amount in respect of all ongoing and future NH projects,” highways secretary Y S Malik said.		“The project executing entities of the ministry have been advised to restrict the payment of administrative charges up to 2.5% of the compensation amount in respect of all ongoing and future NH projects,” highways secretary Y S Malik said.
		+
		+	=Compensation=
		+	==Arbitration: A ctique of SC’s 2021 judgement ==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL/2021/09/11&entity=Ar02202&sk=D43D30CF&mode=text Sunil Gupta, Sep 11, 2021: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	Construction of national highways and acquisition of land for that purpose is an important GoI project. The state always has the power to compulsorily acquire any person’s property for public purpose but in lieu of fair compensation. Fair compensation is a constitutional right. However, now, under a recent Supreme Court judgment in Project Director, NHAI vs M Hakeem, GoI can acquire land for highways without a fair mechanism for compensation. SC has always taken pride in laying down the law for upholding constitutional rights. But it has failed this time.
		+
		+	''' Why is govt arbitration one-sided? '''
		+
		+	Under the National Highways Act, 1956 (amended 1997), when GoI acquires land for highways, compensation is fixed by a government servant. A dissatisfied landowner can seek reconsideration but even reconsideration is done by another government servant called an ‘arbitrator’ who is appointed not with the landowner’s consent but unilaterally by GoI.
		+
		+	A non-consensual ‘arbitrator’ is an oxymoron. Fulsome remedies of appeal are not available to the landowner under the Land Acquisition Act if the arbitrator’s compensation award is inadequate. Only a truncated remedy on technical grounds under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is provided, where a court has limited power.
		+
		+	The court under this remedy can either set aside the award or leave it to be re-decided by the arbitrator but cannot modify the award and increase the compensation itself. Arbitrariness is writ large. Still, the apex court refused to concede to lower courts (below it) the right to enhance NHA awards.
		+
		+	SC’s view could have been acceptable had the arbitrator been appointed with the landowner’s consent. An HC had found that the governmentappointed arbitrator had simply ‘rubber-stamped’ the collector’s measly compensation of Rs 46.55-83.15 per sq mt, although the market value (from sale-deeds of identical lands) was Rs 645 psm.
		+
		+	Therefore, HC, instead of setting aside the award or remitting it for a completely new hearing and decision by yet another government-appointed bureaucrat arbitrator, enhanced the compensation itself. It held that, at least, as regards NHA awards, Section 34 should be construed liberally as permitting the court to modify and enhance the compensation itself. This view gave landowners at least one full and fair judicial remedy in a court.
		+
		+	''' What did the Supreme Court say? '''
		+
		+	Time and again, SC has itself adopted ‘dynamic’ and ‘creative’ interpretation of statutes to facilitate justice. It has constitutional power to do ‘complete justice’. However, this time, despite NHA’s unfair consequences, SC disagreed with HC and adopted a surprisingly conservative approach.
		+	SC expressed regret that under NHA the wholesome regime of appeals has been replaced by a nonconsensual arbitrator’s award challengeable only on limited grounds but left it to Parliament to amend NHA. Yet it simultaneously ruled that the mere fact that such a process would enable a government servant to ‘rubber-stamp’ an award cannot mean that a challenge on merits should be provided under Section 34. Such an approach by the all-powerful highest court is disconcerting.
		+
		+	Ironically enough, SC did note the ‘perverse’ and ‘abysmally low amounts’ granted to landowners by the Arbitrator. Yet it disapproved the HC’s enhancement but at the same time refused to disturb this particular enhancement on the ground that the NHA amendment’s constitutional validity hasn’t been challenged, therefore, grave injustice would be done if SC were to set aside the HC decision or leave it for re-decision by the very government servant arbitrator who had applied the ‘depressed land values’.
		+
		+	''' Why does the status quo continue? '''
		+
		+	However, SC has denied lower courts (below it) the right to modify and enhance NHA awards. They can only set aside an award or remit it back for ‘arbitration’. Landowners cannot challenge the NHA amendment’s validity in their purely statutory petitions under Section 34. That can happen only in a writ petition in HCs or SC under the Constitution. This leaves lower courts spectators when confronted with unjust awards.
		+
		+	Future cases of inadequate NHA compensation under Section 34 leave landowners (mostly poor farmers and agriculturists) and lower courts in a bind. For landowners, SC has ruled a ‘limited right’ and ‘limited remedy’ to ‘cure’ awards. Lower courts are hamstrung by a lakshman rekha.
		+
		+	[[Category:Defence\|LLAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources\|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Government\|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|L LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]

	=Court rulings=		=Court rulings=

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:06, 16 October 2020
Line 143:		Line 143:

	“There is no reason as to why the HC, while coming to its conclusion, has not referred to the sale statistics. If the sale statistics are to be ignored, the HC should have furnished reasons for doing so... In our considered opinion, the method of granting compensation on the basis of cumulative increase as done was not permissible in the facts of the case, in view of the sale deeds produced. The method of working out compensation without considering the evidence on record cannot be said to be justifiable,” the SC said.		“There is no reason as to why the HC, while coming to its conclusion, has not referred to the sale statistics. If the sale statistics are to be ignored, the HC should have furnished reasons for doing so... In our considered opinion, the method of granting compensation on the basis of cumulative increase as done was not permissible in the facts of the case, in view of the sale deeds produced. The method of working out compensation without considering the evidence on record cannot be said to be justifiable,” the SC said.
		+
		+	==2020: SC order paves way for faster acquisition, reduced litigation==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2020%2F03%2F07&entity=Ar00512&sk=CA70E33F&mode=text AmitAnand Choudhary, SC order paves way for faster land acquisition, reduced litigation, March 7, 2020: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	In a major relief to governments and official agencies, the Supreme Court has cleared the air over validity of land acquisition that was initiated but could not be completed in the stipulated five-year period. The court ruled the process will be deemed lapsed only if the possession of land is not complete and no compensation been paid.
		+
		+	The SC further clarified that delay due to an interim court order has to be excluded from the computation of five years. The ruling will help speed up land acquisition and reduce litigation. A five-judge Constitution bench brought to an end the controversy arising from contradictory verdicts of two SC benches on interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in the Land Acquisition Act.
		+
		+	The issue was whether farmers who had refused to accept compensation for land could be deemed to have been compensated if the government deposited the money with the treasury or a court. The Constitution bench was set up to interpret the section which says that in case of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 act, but physical possession of land has not been taken or compensation not paid — the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed.
		+
		+	''' SC rejects farmers’ land acquisition plea '''
		+
		+	The appropriate government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh.
		+
		+	Enumerating the provision, the bench of Justices Arun Mishra, Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M R Shah and S Ravindra Bhat said, “The word ‘or’ used in Section 24(2) between possession and compensation has to be read as ‘nor’ or as ‘and’. The deemed lapse of land acquisition proceedings under the Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 takes place where due to inaction of authorities for five years or more prior to commencement of the said Act, possession of land has not been taken nor has compensation been paid. In other words, in case possession has been taken but compensation not paid, then there is no lapse. Similarly, there is no lapse if compensation has been paid but possession not taken.”
		+
		+	The court said Section 24(2) deals with inaction on the part of the authorities, not delay as a result of dilatory tactics and conduct of landowners.It brushed aside the plea of the farmers that land acquisition be invalidated if compensation amount is deposited in the treasury instead of court.
		+
		+	[[Category:Defence\|L
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Economy-Industry-Resources\|L
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Government\|L
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:India\|L
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]
		+	[[Category:Law,Constitution,Judiciary\|L
		+	LAND ACQUISITION: INDIA]]

	=Defence personnel, properties of=		=Defence personnel, properties of=

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:47, 17 December 2018
Line 165:		Line 165:

	The judge also pointed the acquired properties had been utilized for industrial and commercial purposes “which is against the purpose for which the land had been originally acquired.“ He then directed CMDA and other authorities to reconvey the lands to the blood relatives of the freedom fighter within two months.		The judge also pointed the acquired properties had been utilized for industrial and commercial purposes “which is against the purpose for which the land had been originally acquired.“ He then directed CMDA and other authorities to reconvey the lands to the blood relatives of the freedom fighter within two months.
		+
		+	=Expenditure of government on compensation=
		+	==2012- 2018==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F12%2F14&entity=Ar01807&sk=2BB70E2F&mode=text&fbclid=IwAR3BWs7iCkkfdUv1Gd-M1Ycr9yN4Id-8seURQM4lm6J10ic-zUVdr3MfuA0 Dipak Dash, Govt payout to acquire land for NHs rises 4.5 times in 4 years, December 14, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+	[[File: The sums spent by the government on compensation for land acquired for national highways, 2012- 2018.jpg\|The sums spent by the government on compensation for land acquired for national highways, 2012- 2018 <br/> From: [https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F12%2F14&entity=Ar01807&sk=2BB70E2F&mode=text&fbclid=IwAR3BWs7iCkkfdUv1Gd-M1Ycr9yN4Id-8seURQM4lm6J10ic-zUVdr3MfuA0 Dipak Dash, Govt payout to acquire land for NHs rises 4.5 times in 4 years, December 14, 2018: ''The Times of India'']\|frame\|500px]]
		+
		+
		+	''UPA-Era Law Pushes Up Average Cost Per Hectare From ₹80L To ₹3.6Cr''
		+
		+	Government payout for acquiring a hectare of land for building and expansion of National Highways has increased four-and-a-half times in the past four years and more than half of NHAI’s total expenditure between 2014 and 2018 has been on accounts of procuring land parcels.
		+
		+	The spike in expenses has been due to the implementation of the land acquisition law enacted during UPA-II. NHAI started compliance of the law from January 1, 2015.
		+
		+	“As per the information gathered from NHAI, the average cost of land acquisition was about Rs 80 lakh per hectare before January 1, 2015, which has now gone up to about Rs 3.6 crore per hectare. Out of a total expenditure of Rs 1,52,000 crore during the period of last four years (April 2014 to March 2018), NHAI has spent Rs 81,000 crore on land acquisition as against an expenditure of about Rs 41,000 crore on civil works,” a manual of guidelines for land acquisition prepared by road transport and highways secretary Y S Malik said.
		+
		+	Sources said NHAI has been facing a big challenge as it has the largest share of land procured by government for developmental works. There have been instances of district collectors hiking the circle rate abnormally, which has left the highway authority with no option but pay higher amounts to get land. As per the law, the authority acquiring land has to pay the compensation— either the circle rate or average of sale deeds, whichever is higher.
		+
		+	Since the Centre bears the entire cost of acquiring land, the states are hardly concerned. Rather it suits them as those surrendering their land get handsome compensation. The higher payout has been one of the reasons why people are now more willing to give their land for highway projects.
		+
		+	The ministry has come out with detailed guidelines to streamline the process and address the ambiguities relating to land acquisition and how each stakeholder starting from consultants who prepare detailed project reports to engineers involved in the project can make the process of developing highways effective and less cumbersome.

	=Housing, Land acquisition for=		=Housing, Land acquisition for=

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:13, 8 June 2018
Line 125:		Line 125:

	The court passed the order on a petition filed by Indore Development Authority (IDA) challenging a high court order which had declared land acquired by it as lapsed after the owners refused to accept compensation within five years. The court accepted the contention of IDA’s counsel Sanjay Kapur who said the authority’s obligation to pay the amount was discharged when it offered money to land owners. The merit in a challenge must stand or fall in court but cannot be a lucrative industry for an unworthy litigant and be a device providing for fruits to the avaricious, the court said.		The court passed the order on a petition filed by Indore Development Authority (IDA) challenging a high court order which had declared land acquired by it as lapsed after the owners refused to accept compensation within five years. The court accepted the contention of IDA’s counsel Sanjay Kapur who said the authority’s obligation to pay the amount was discharged when it offered money to land owners. The merit in a challenge must stand or fall in court but cannot be a lucrative industry for an unworthy litigant and be a device providing for fruits to the avaricious, the court said.
		+
		+	== SC, 2018, asks P&H HC to rethink hiking payment to ₹2cr per acre ==
		+	[https://epaper.timesgroup.com/Olive/ODN/TimesOfIndia/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=TOIDEL%2F2018%2F05%2F25&entity=Ar02307&sk=D7844CC2&mode=text Dhananjay Mahapatra, SC: Rethink hiking per acre payoff from ₹12L to ₹2cr, May 25, 2018: ''The Times of India'']
		+
		+
		+	At a time when compensation to farmers for land acquisition gets political overtones, the Supreme Court has asked the Punjab and Haryana high court to reconsider its decision to enhance market value of acquired land at Hansi in Hisar district from Rs 12 lakh to Rs 2 crore per acre, an increase of nearly 17 times.
		+
		+	In 2005, the Haryana government notified acquisition of 229 acres of land in Hansi for residential projects and the compensation per acre was fixed at Rs 12 lakh. The Reference Court enhanced it to Rs 48.4 lakh per acre. The state accepted the award but landowners moved the HC for further enhancement. The HC in 2016 enhanced the rate to Rs 2 crore per acre saying the land was situated at prime location and possessed immense potentiality. The Haryana government challenged it in the SC.
		+
		+	Additional advocate general Alok Sangwan argued before a bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and Mohan M Shantanagoudar that the HC erred by classifying the land as commercial when in reality it was agricultural land. He also produced sale deeds pertaining to land situated in the midst of the acquired land, which had fetched between Rs 4 lakh and Rs 8 lakh per acre.
		+
		+	Appearing for land owners, counsel Neeraj Kumar Jain and Manoj Swarup termed the HC order as ‘equitable’ and challenged production of sale deeds by the state government saying these did not reflect the true market value of the land in question. They cited the sale of land by Haryana Urbad Development Authority in favour of government departments at a far higher rate than those depicted in the sale deeds.
		+
		+	Justice Shantanagoudar said: “Having gone through the material on record and after considering the arguments of the advocates, we are of the opinion that the Reference Court, as well as the HC, have not considered the sale deeds produced on behalf of the state for determination of compensation.”
		+
		+	“A chart of the sale deeds on record filed before us by the advocates appearing on behalf of the state reveals prima facie the value of certain land involved in those sale deeds. The site plan of village Hansi depicts such sold patches as being in the middle of the acquired land. The lands in all the sale deeds shown alongside the plan are in close proximity and adjoining to the land acquired under the Section 4 of notification of the present case,” the bench said.
		+
		+	“There is no reason as to why the HC, while coming to its conclusion, has not referred to the sale statistics. If the sale statistics are to be ignored, the HC should have furnished reasons for doing so... In our considered opinion, the method of granting compensation on the basis of cumulative increase as done was not permissible in the facts of the case, in view of the sale deeds produced. The method of working out compensation without considering the evidence on record cannot be said to be justifiable,” the SC said.

	=Defence personnel, properties of=		=Defence personnel, properties of=