Advocates appered:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Harmeet Singh Ruprah, AOR Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Kanishk Sharma, Adv. Mr. Paras Bajpai, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Devvrat Singh, Adv. Mr. Anand Kumar Dubey, Adv. Mr. Randhir Kumar Ojha, AOR Mr. Santosh Paul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sriharsh Nahush Bundela, AOR Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vedant Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aditi Rai, Adv. Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, AOR Mrs. Pooja Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Satvic Mathur, Adv. Mr. Palash Pareek, Adv. Mr. Vinod Prasad, Adv.

Question 1? What is the applicability of the theory of deduction in determining compensation under the Acquisition Act, 2013? Question 2? What is the correct basis for determining market value for compensation under the Acquisition Act, 2013: Clause (a) Stamp Act circle rate, Clause (b) average sale price with Explanations, or Clause (c) agreed compensation for private/private-partnership cases? Question 3? What is the role and binding nature of Collector’s Guidelines/ circle rates in fixing compensation under the Acquisition Act, 2013?

- The court holds that the theory of deduction does not apply under the Acquisition Act, 2013; compensation must be based on the highest market value as per the Stamp Act (!) (!) . - For market value under Section 26(1), the highest value among Clauses (a), (b), and (c) must be used; in this case, Clause (a) (circle rate under Stamp Act) was applied (!) (!) . - Explanations to Section 26(1) grant the Collector discretion to adjust the calculated market value to reflect actual market value, with reasons recorded if adjustments are made under Explanation 4 (!) (!) (!) . - The Collector’s determination of market value is to be multiplied by the First Schedule factors to compute final compensation, and Section 27 then determines the total compensation including assets and solatium (!) (!) . - The Court emphasized that circle rates must reflect true market value and criticized inflated circle rates; states should fix scientifically and transparently, with expert involvement, to ensure fair compensation and proper revenue. Circle rates are not absolute determiners but prima facie evidence, and actual value can be challenged (!) (!) (!) . - In this case, compensation calculated on circle rate (2014-2015 MP guidelines) with adjustments for assets and solatium was upheld; appeals by MP Road Development Corporation were dismissed (!) (!) .

Question 1?

What is the applicability of the theory of deduction in determining compensation under the Acquisition Act, 2013?

Question 2?

What is the correct basis for determining market value for compensation under the Acquisition Act, 2013: Clause (a) Stamp Act circle rate, Clause (b) average sale price with Explanations, or Clause (c) agreed compensation for private/private-partnership cases?

Question 3?

What is the role and binding nature of Collector’s Guidelines/ circle rates in fixing compensation under the Acquisition Act, 2013?