Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 211
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.SURENDER, J.
Joseph Ligori - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Kanyakumari District – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.9139 of 2025
Decided On : 24-02-2026
Important Points
Subject
Land Acquisition - Compensation and Rehabilitation
Act Referred
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT: S.34
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226
Headnote
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's land was acquired for a national highway, with a prior arbitral award providing compensation. Following a request for rehabilitation and resettlement under RFCTLARR, the request was denied on the grounds that sufficient compensation had already been granted.
Findings of Court:
The District Collector must assess the petitioner’s eligibility under Section 31(1) of RFCTLARR and specify entitlement, as compensation was initially granted under the NH Act.
Issues: The key issues addressed revolved around the entitlement of the petitioner for rehabilitation and resettlement compensation despite receiving other compensation, and whether the procedural requirements of the RFCTLARR Act were met.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the District Collector must explicitly determine entitlement under RFCTLARR for an affected family, regardless of compensation granted under the NH Act. Hence, the rejection of the petitioner’s request was not compliant with legal requirements.
Result: Writ petition allowed; the District Collector is to reconsider the petitioner’s entitlement for compensation under RFCTLARR.
For the Petitioner: Mr.G.Justin
For the Respondent: Mr.B.Ramanathan Addl. Government, Mr.Su.Srinivasan Standing Counsel
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. compensation for land acquisition (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent's finding on compensation adequacy (Para 3) |
| 3. entitlement under nh and rfctlarr acts (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. arguments against further compensation claim (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. application of rfctlarr provisions (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. definition of affected family (Para 13) |
| 7. entitlement criteria under rfctlarr (Para 14 , 15) |
| 8. requirement for dual award consideration (Para 16) |
| 9. assessment of eligibility and compliance (Para 17 , 18) |
| 10. court's directive for award reconsideration (Para 19) |
ORDER :
K.SURENDER, J.
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the first respondent refusing rehabilitation and resettlement under Section 31 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "RFCTLARR Act") and consequently, to direct the first respondent to pass an award as per Section 31 (1) of the RFCTLARR Act for all the entitlement for as per Schedule - I and II, to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner's land, measuring 1125 sq. meters in Survey No. 101/12B at Eranial Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District, was acquired for NH – 47. Based on the entitlement, a total amount of Rs. 33,97,028/- was granted as compensation under an arbitral award by the Collector after the petitioner applied against the compensation granted by the Authorised Officer and the Special District Revenue Officer (Land Acquisition). Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated 27.04.2024 to the first respondent/District Collector, claiming rehabilitation and resettlement compensation. In the said application, the petitioner provided details of the provisions under which they were entitled to compensation under Schedule II. Specifically, the petitioner sought compensation on the following grounds:
| S.No. Of the Second Schedule | Entitlement/Provision | Entitled Amount |
|---|---|---|
| (1)Provision of housing units in case of displacement | (2) One - time financial assistance for house construction | Not less than Rs.1,50,000/- (One Lakh fifty thousand rupees) |
| (4) Choice of Annuity | (b) Onetime payment | Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs Rupees) |
| Subsistence grant for | Monthly subsistence allowance for a period of one year | Equivalent to Rs.3000/- per month for a period of one year from the date of award amounting Rs.36,000/- |
| (6)Transportation cost for displaced families | For shifting the family and building materials | Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees) |
| (7)Cattle shed/Pretty shops cost | One time financial assistance for construction of cattle shed | Minimum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees) |
| (10)One-time Resettlement allowance | Re-settlement allowance | Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees) |
3. In reply to the representation dated 27.04.2024, the following finding was given by the respondents:
English version:
“The petitioner's petition was considered under Section 31 (1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, RFCTLARR Act, 2013, a settlement was issued to the petitioner by the Special District Revenue Officer following the rules and a compensation of Rs.17,58,532/- has been granted. Further, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the District Collector /Arbitrator, upon which an additional compensation of Rs. 33,97,028/- was awarded. Total Rs. 51,55,560/- has been awarded to the petitioner. Therefore, it is concluded that adequate compensation has been granted to the petitioner for the land acquired. Moreover, in cases of land acquisition for long-term projects such as National Highways (Linear Projects), there is no provision to grant compensation other than what is provided under the above Act. Accordingly, the petitioner’s request is rejected and this order is hereby passed.”
(emphasis supplied)
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to compensation under both the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "NH Act
