When lands are identical, similar, and situated in close proximity with identical purpose for acquisition, authorities cannot apply discriminatory valuation methods; they must ensure parity in compensation to avoid violating the principle of equal treatment for similarly situated landowners.

Order

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the third respondent, Tahsildar, Kundrathur, Chennai dated 04.07.2025 and to quash the same, and consequently, to direct the second respondent-District Collector to pass a fresh Award in accordance with the Right to fair compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, RFCTLARR Act,2013).

2. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the third respondent, while determining the compensation, ought to have taken into consideration the market value of the petitioner's land, which is at Rs.2000/- per sq.ft., whereas, the third respondent has fixed the land value at Rs.343/- per sq.ft, and determined the compensation, which is meager. It is further averred by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that in respect of the same acquisition proceedings initiated by the respondents against the same land owner, (petitioner herein) with respect to the lands situated adjacent to the petitioner's subject lands, in the same area (viz., Kundrathur), the second respondent determined the compensation by fixing the land value at Rs.1682/- per sq.ft. but so far as the subject land is concerned, it is not known on what basis, the third respondent fixed the value of the land at Rs.343/- per sq.ft.

2.1 Therefore, the learned Senior Counsel contended that there is a huge disparity in fixation of compensation by the third respondent; that even assuming that the petitioner's land is a wet land, that cannot be a ground for the third respondent to determine the compensation with such huge disparity, inasmuch as, the said wet lands are situated very adjacent to the petitioner's other lands, and the disparity could be only around Rs.100 or Rs.200 per sq.ft., as there is no significant difference between those two lands, and therefore, contended that fixation of the land value at Rs.1682/- per sq.ft., for particular survey numbers of the petitioner's lands and fixation of land value at Rs.343/-per sq.ft for other survey numbers of the land, when admittedly, both lands are situated next to each other, in the same area, owned by the same land owner (petitioner) would per se shows that the third respondent has failed to comply with Section 26 of the Act and also reflects his arbitrary and inconsistent method of valuation.

2.2 It is furthermore averred by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that due to such acquisition proceedings, the utility and layout of the remaining lands were completely destroyed, therefore, the third respondent while determining the compensation, ought to have taken into consideration of this devastating impact and fixed the compensation, instead, the third respondent has determined the compensation by taking the land value at Rs.343/- which resulted in awarding low compensation to the petitioner.

2.3 The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though aggrieved by the award passed by the second respondent dated 30.04.2025, the petitioner can seek for reference by filing an application under Section 64 of the Act before the Reference Court, it is the grievance expressed on behalf of the petitioner during the course of his submission that the petitioner has not been served with the award passed by the second respondent dated 30.04.2025 but has been served only with the order passed by the third respondent dated 04.07.2025, which is in consequent to the said award and hence, the petitioner is not in a position to challenge the award dat