Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Land Acquisition Compensation Under RFCTLARR Act — Petitioners Failed to Demonstrate Entitlement to Higher Compensation. Court Held That Compensation Determined by Reference Court Under Section 64 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 Was Just and Proper Based on Evidence.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution

Admin

2026-05-19 01:16:04

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioners, legal heirs of original landowners Shrikrishna Mahadev Kokane and Chandrakant Mahadev Kokane, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging the compensation awarded for their land acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The land was acquired by the State for rehabilitation purposes. The Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune, initially determined compensation, which was challenged before the Reference Court under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act. The Reference Court, after considering evidence including sale instances and previous awards, fixed the compensation at a certain rate per hectare along with statutory benefits like solatium and interest. The petitioners, dissatisfied with the Reference Court's award, filed the present writ petition seeking further enhancement. The respondents, including the Deputy Collector, Additional Collector, and Divisional Commissioner, opposed the petition. The High Court, after hearing arguments from Ms. Rachana Harpale for the petitioners and Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the State, examined the evidence on record. The court noted that the petitioners failed to produce any reliable evidence such as comparable sale deeds or valuation reports to demonstrate that the market value determined by the Reference Court was inadequate. The court observed that the Reference Court had properly appreciated the evidence and applied the correct legal principles. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no ground to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Reference Court. The judgment was pronounced on 7th April 2026 by a division bench comprising Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata.

Headnote

A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Section 64 of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 - Reference Court - The petitioners sought enhancement of compensation for land acquired under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Reference Court had determined compensation based on evidence including sale instances and awards. The High Court held that the petitioners failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify higher compensation and that the Reference Court's determination was just and proper. (Paras 1-10)

B) Land Acquisition - Burden of Proof - Market Value - The burden lies on the claimant to prove that the compensation awarded is inadequate. The petitioners did not adduce any cogent evidence such as comparable sale deeds or expert valuation to establish a higher market value. Hence, no interference was warranted. (Paras 5-8)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation for the acquired land beyond what was awarded by the Reference Court under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Final Decision

The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify enhancement of compensation. The court found that the Reference Court's determination under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 was just and proper and did not warrant interference.

Law Points

Land Acquisition
Compensation
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act
2013
Section 64
Reference Court
Burden of Proof
Market Value
Solatium
Interest

Case Details

2026:BHC-AS:16416-DB

Writ Petition No. 3623 of 2023

2026-04-07

Justice A.S. Gadkari, Justice Kamal Khata

2026:BHC-AS:16416-DB

Ms. Rachana Harpale a/w. Mr. Santosh Kurade i/by Mr. Nitin P. Deshpande for the Petitioners; Mr. S.H. Kankal, AGP for the Respondent-State

Shrikrishna Mahadev Kokane (since deceased through his LR), Chandrakant Mahadev Kokane (since deceased through his LR), Smt. Harnabai Chandrakant Kokane (since deceased through her legal heirs: Arun Chandrakant Kokane, Jalindar Chandrakant Kokane, Machhindra Chandrakant Kokane, Sanjay Chandrakant Kokane, Malti Rohidas Dehrange, Meena Vasant Walunj)

The Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune; The Additional Collector, Pune; The Divisional Commissioner, Pune Revenue Division, Pune

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the compensation awarded by the Reference Court under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 for land acquired by the State.

Remedy Sought

The petitioners sought enhancement of compensation for the acquired land beyond what was awarded by the Reference Court.

Filing Reason

The petitioners were dissatisfied with the compensation determined by the Reference Court under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

Previous Decisions

The Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune initially determined compensation. The petitioners challenged it before the Reference Court under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, which awarded compensation at a certain rate per hectare with statutory benefits. The present writ petition challenges that award.

Issues

Whether the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation for the acquired land beyond what was awarded by the Reference Court under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

Submissions/Arguments

The petitioners argued that the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was inadequate and that they were entitled to higher compensation based on the market value of the land. The respondents (State) argued that the Reference Court had correctly determined the compensation based on evidence and that there was no ground for enhancement.

Ratio Decidendi

The burden of proof lies on the claimant to demonstrate that the compensation awarded is inadequate. In the absence of cogent evidence such as comparable sale deeds or expert valuation, the court will not interfere with the compensation determined by the Reference Court under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioners have failed to produce any reliable evidence to show that the market value determined by the Reference Court is inadequate. The Reference Court has properly appreciated the evidence and applied the correct legal principles.

Procedural History

The land was acquired by the State for rehabilitation purposes. The Deputy Collector, Rehabilitation, Pune initially determined compensation. The petitioners challenged the compensation before the Reference Court under Section 64 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013. The Reference Court awarded compensation at a certain rate per hectare with statutory benefits. Dissatisfied, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court. The petition was reserved on 26th March 2026 and pronounced on 7th April 2026.