Facts of the case
- The government has acquired one acre of land belonging to ‘X’ for the construction of a stadium, which is considered a public purpose under land acquisition laws.
- ‘X’ has been offered compensation, but believes it is inadequate or meager.
- ‘X’ wishes to protest against the compensation amount and seek a legal remedy.
Issues in the case
- Whether the compensation awarded to ‘X’ is in accordance with the statutory provisions under the LARR Act, 2013.
- Whether ‘X’ has the right to challenge the amount of compensation.
- What are the remedies available to a landowner dissatisfied with the compensation fixed by the government.
- Whether proper procedure, including social impact assessment and market value determination, has been followed by the acquiring authority.
Principles associated with it
- The LARR Act, 2013 mandates fair compensation, calculated as a multiple of market value (typically 2× in urban and 4× in rural areas) along with solatium and other benefits.
- If a landowner is not satisfied with the compensation amount, they can file an objection before the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority.
- Section 64 of the Act allows for the Reference to the Authority (Land Acquisition Tribunal) for adjudication of disputes regarding compensation.
- The Act ensures that compensation must reflect current market value, and includes provisions for rehabilitation and resettlement in certain cases.
- Courts have emphasized that landowners cannot be deprived of land without just and fair compensation (e.g., in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal).
Judgement
- ‘X’ has the right to challenge the compensation as meager under Section 64 of the LARR Act, 2013.
- The appropriate remedy is to approach the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority with a formal application for re-evaluation.
- If necessary, ‘X’ can escalate the matter to the High Court or Supreme Court under writ jurisdiction if any constitutional or procedural violation is found.
- Unless proper compensation is given, acquisition may be held as violating Article 300A (right to property).
- Therefore, ‘X’ is entitled to a remedy, and the protest can be pursued legally through the statutory mechanism provided in the Act.