Judicial oversight is required to ensure fair compensation is considered for land acquisition under the relevant act.

ORDER

WMP. No.8609 of 2026 is ordered subject to the payment of separate court fee.

2.This writ petition has been filed to direct the respondents to enhance the compensation in favour of the petitioners for the land, acquired from the petitioners and morefully disclosed in the prayer to this writ petition as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, based on the petitioners’ representation dated 03.11.2025.

3.Earlier, a writ petition was filed by the petitioners in W.P. No.27506 of

2019 in respect of the very same land. The petitioners claimed that without any land acquisition, the respondents were utilising the petitioners’ land unauthorisedly and illegally. By an order dated 21.10.2024 passed in W.P. No.27506 of 2019, this Court had directed the respondents to pay compensation in lieu of the usage of the petitioners’ land. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents have passed an order on 17.04.2025 determining the compensation amount payable to the petitioners and the said compensation has also been paid to the petitioners on 21.04.2025. The petitioners, unsatisfied with the quantum of compensation, awarded to them, gave a representation on 03.11.2025 to the respondents seeking for enhancement of compensation. Since the said representation was not considered, the petitioners were constrained to file this writ petition.

4.Mr.D.Ravichander, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5. Mr.Abishekumurthy, learned Standing Counsel accepts notice on behalf of the third respondent.

5.No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioners’

representation, as stated supra, is considered, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

6.Though the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent would submit that the representation of the petitioners is beyond the stipulated time as prescribed under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the said contention has been disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, who would submit that only in case where an award has been passed in accordance with the provisions of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, the said Section prescribing the time limit will apply to the petitioners’ case. According to her, no award was passed in accordance with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and therefore, Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not get attracted.

7.This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the respective contentions as observed earlier.

8.No prejudice would be caused to the respondents if the petitioners’

representation, is considered, on merits and in accordance with law, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

9.For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the third respondent to pass final orders, on merits and in accordance with law on the petitioners’ representation dated 03.11.2025 seeking for enhancement of compensation for the lands utilised by the respondents, which were earlier belonging to the petitioners, within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

10.The petitioners will have to strictly abide by the directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners in W.P.