Back
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.9141 of 2025
Decided On : 24-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to refusal of compensation under rfctlarr act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. entitlement to dual awards under nh act and rfctlarr act. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. existence of alternative remedies under civil law. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. definition and entitlements of 'affected family' under rfctlarr act. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. requirement for the district collector to specify eligibility under rfctlarr. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. failure to comply with rfctlarr necessitates further evaluation. (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 7. order to reconsider compensation under rfctlarr act. (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 2390 sq. meters in Survey No. 562/15 at Thiruvathancode Village, Kalkulam Taluk, Kanyakumari District, was acquired for NH – 47. Based on the entitlement, a total amount of Rs.2,89,608/- 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.2,89,608/- has been granted. Further, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the District Collector /Arbitrator, upon which an additional compensation of Rs.13,43,192/- was awarded. 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") and the Right to Fair Compensation an
Denial of rehabilitation and resettlement compensation under RFCTLARR Act was improper as it did not confirm eligibility despite prior compensation under the NH Act.
The court emphasized that past compensation does not preclude a party from claiming separate rehabilitation and resettlement compensation under the RFCTLARR Act, necessitating explicit evaluation of ....
The District Collector must specify entitlement under the RFCTLARR Act when denying rehabilitation and resettlement compensation, irrespective of prior compensation under the NH Act.
Petitioners can obtain no cause for concern or apprehension, as impelled by them in this writ petition, because if they are to seek enhancement of the amounts under the Award as per Section 3G of the....
The competent authority under the National Highways Act is responsible for declaring rehabilitation and resettlement awards, not the district Collector, as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Com....
The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013, apply to land acquisitions under the National Highways Act, requiring a detailed examination of indivi....
The provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act apply to ongoing arbitration arising from the Resettlement Act, and compensation must be determined under thi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
