For a landowner, the identity of the statute under which the land is taken ought to be a matter of indifference. The Constitution does not grade citizens by the acquiring department: whether the road is a National Highway, the line a railway, or the plot a general acquisition, the owner surrenders the same property and deserves the same measure of justice. Yet for years the law told a different story. Land taken under a handful of “special” enactments was compensated on a thinner scale than land taken under the general law, and the difference could run to crores. This article traces how that disparity arose, and how two developments — an executive order of 2015 and a Supreme Court judgment of 2019 — have very largely cured it. It explains how land acquisition compensation under the National Highways and Railways Acts has been brought into alignment with the LARR Act, 2013. The practical message is simple, and we state it at the outset: whatever the acquiring statute, a landowner today should insist on First-Schedule-level compensation, and identify which of the two remedies applies by looking at the notification date.

For the architecture of the 2013 Act and its Schedules, see Spoke 1 of this series; for the forums in which these claims are pressed, see Spoke 3.

The problem: a two-tier land Acquisition compensation regime

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“the 2013 Act” or “LARR Act”) was enacted precisely to end the parsimony of the colonial Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It built a generous package into three Schedules — the First Schedule (compensation: market value under s.26, multiplied by the factor in the First Schedule of up to 1x in urban and up to 2x in rural areas, plus 100% solatium under s.30, plus the additional amounts), the Second Schedule (rehabilitation and resettlement) and the Third Schedule (infrastructure amenities).

But the 2013 Act did not sweep away every acquisition statute in the country. Certain existing enactments — thirteen of them — were listed in its Fourth Schedule and, by force of s.105 read with s.105(3), were kept outside the direct operation of the 2013 Act’s compensation and R&R machinery. Two of the most consequential entries in that Fourth Schedule were the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Railways Act, 1989 — the very statutes under which a very large share of India’s compulsory acquisitions actually take place.

The result was a two-tier regime. An owner whose land was taken under the general 2013-Act procedure received First-Schedule market value with the multiplier, 100% solatium and the additional amounts, together with Second- and Third-Schedule benefits. An owner next door, whose land was taken for a National Highway under s.3G of the 1956 Act, or for a railway under Chapter IVA of the 1989 Act, received a compensation computed by a Competent Authority under the special statute — historically without the solatium, without the multiplier, and without the R&R package. Same land, same public purpose, materially different cheque.

Worse, in the case of the National Highways Act the exclusion had been made explicit and aggressive. Section 3J of the NH Act provided, in terms, that “nothing in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894” shall apply to an acquisition under the NH Act — the practical effect being to shut out the solatium (s.23(2)) and interest (s.28) that even the 1894 Act had guaranteed. Highway landowners were thus doubly disadvantaged: denied the new 2013-Act generosity, and denied even the old 1894-Act solatium and interest.

The first cure: the Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015

The first, and broadest, corrective came from the Central Government itself. Section 113 of the 2013 Act confers a power to remove difficulties in giving effect to the Act. Exercising s.113(1) read with s.105(3), the Government issued the RFCTLARR (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015, dated 28 August 2015.

The Order did the one thing the 2013 Act had left conspicuously undone: it extended the land acquisition compensation, rehabilitation and resettlement and infrastructure benefits of the First, Second and Third Schedules to the thirteen Fourth-Schedule enactments — expressly including the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Railways Act, 1989. Critically, the Order was deemed effective from 1 January 2015.

What this means on the ground is concrete and substantial. An acquisition under the National Highways Act or the Railways Act, once the Order applies, can no longer be compensated on the old thin scale. It must now carry:

• First-Schedule market value determined under s.26 (the higher of the jantri value under s.26(1)(a) and the average of the top 50% of sale deeds under s.26(1)(b)), taken with the applicable value of assets under s.29;
• the First-Schedule multiplier (a factor up to 1x for urban land and up to 2x for rural land);
• 100% solatium under s.30, and the additional amounts the Act provides; and
• the Second- and Third-Schedule rehabilitation, resettlement and infrastructure entitlements.

For National Highways specifically, the position was later put beyond serious argument by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways guidelines dated 28 December 2017, which confirm that the First Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act applies to National Highways acquisitions. A Competent Authority determining compensation under s.3G of the NH Act, or an arbitrator appointed under s.3G(5), is therefore now to compute compensation on the 2013-Act First-Schedule footing, not the old NH-Act footing.

The one limitation of the 2015 Order is temporal, and it is important. The Order is prospective: it is deemed effective from 1 January 2015. It does nothing for the owner whose National Highway or railway land was notified and acquired before that date. For that earlier population, a different remedy was needed — and it came from the Supreme Court.

The second cure: Union of India v. Tarsem Singh (2019)

The gap left open by the prospective 2015 Order was filled, at least for National Highways, by Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304.

The Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh addressed s.3J of the NH Act — the provision that excluded the 1894 Act and thereby denied solatium and interest to highway landowners. The Court held that s.3J is unconstitutional, as violative of Article 14, insofar as it denies solatium and interest. There was no rational basis, the Court reasoned, for treating a person whose land is acquired for a National Highway less favourably than a person whose land is acquired under the general law; the classification failed the equality test. Accordingly, the solatium (s.23(2)) and interest (s.28) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 apply to National Highways Act acquisitions — the relevant window being the period 1997 to 2015.

The 1997-2015 window is not arbitrary; it is precisely the pre-Order period. From 1 January 2015 onwards the 2015 Order supplies the (larger) 2013-Act package. For the years before that — reaching back to when the NH-Act acquisition machinery took its modern shape in 1997 — Tarsem Singh restores, at a minimum, the 1894-Act solatium and interest that s.3J had purported to strip away.

The reach of Tarsem Singh was subsequently confirmed and strengthened. The principle was reaffirmed and applied retrospectively by the Supreme Court’s order dated 4 February 2025 — meaning that highway landowners in the pre-2015 window may claim the solatium and interest even where their acquisitions had long since concluded, subject of course to the ordinary discipline of the individual case.

Together, then, the 2015 Order and Tarsem Singh interlock neatly. Neither alone would have sufficed: the Order is generous but prospective; Tarsem Singh is retrospective but narrower in what it restores (solatium and interest, under the 1894 baseline, and expressly in the National Highways context). Read together they close the disparity across the whole timeline.

The timeline: which remedy applies

Because everything turns on when the acquisition was notified, the position is best set out chronologically.

A landowner (or an acquiring authority) need only locate the notification date on this timeline to know which limb governs. For National Highway acquisitions, the MoRTH guidelines of 28 December 2017 reinforce the third row; for the pre-2015 rows, Tarsem Singh supplies the equal-treatment floor.

Practical upshot for a landowner

Three points follow for anyone facing, or already caught by, an land acquisition under a special Act:

1. Do not accept a “special-Act discount.” The premise that a National Highways or railway acquisition necessarily pays less than a general land acquisition is, for post-2015 notifications, simply wrong. Insist on First-Schedule-level compensation — market value, multiplier, 100% solatium and the additional amounts — and on the Second- and Third-Schedule benefits.
2. Fix the notification date first. The date decides the remedy. On or after 1 January 2015, invoke the 2015 Order. For a National Highway acquisition notified in the 1997-2015 window, invoke Tarsem Singh to recover solatium and interest, relying additionally on the 4 February 2025 order for its retrospective application.
3. Combine the harmonisation argument with the valuation argument. Extending the First Schedule is only half the battle; the quantum of market value under s.26 still has to be fought on comparable sales and the correct multiplier (the subject of other articles in this series). Harmonisation gets you into the First-Schedule room; valuation determines what you take home from it.

Key takeaways

• Before 2015, land taken under thirteen Fourth-Schedule enactments — notably the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Railways Act, 1989 — was kept outside the 2013 Act’s land acquisition compensation and R&R package by 105 read with s.105(3), producing a two-tier regime.
• The RFCTLARR (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015, dated 28 August 2015 (issued under 113(1) read with s.105(3)) extended the First, Second and Third Schedule benefits to all thirteen enactments, deemed effective 1 January 2015.
• The MoRTH guidelines dated 28 December 2017 confirm that the First Schedule applies to National Highways acquisitions.
• Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304 struck down 3J of the NH Act as violative of Article 14 insofar as it denied solatium and interest, and applied the 1894-Act solatium and interest to NH acquisitions in the 1997-2015 window — a position reaffirmed and applied retrospectively by the SC order dated 4 February 2025.
• The two remedies are complementary: the 2015 Order is prospective from 1 January 2015; Tarsem Singh reaches back to fill the pre-2015 gap for National Highways.
• Practically: identify the notification date, then claim under the 2015 Order or under Tarsem Singh accordingly, and always press for First-Schedule-level compensation.

Frequently asked questions

1. My land was taken for a National Highway in 2019. Am I entitled to the full 2013-Act compensation? Yes, in substance. Because the notification post-dates 1 January 2015, the RFCTLARR (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015 applies, extending the First, Second and Third Schedule benefits to the National Highways Act acquisition. That means First-Schedule market value under s.26, the applicable multiplier, 100% solatium under s.30 and the additional amounts, plus R&R and infrastructure benefits. The MoRTH guidelines dated 28 December 2017 confirm the First Schedule applies to National Highways acquisitions. The remaining battle is over the quantum of market value, not the applicability of the First Schedule.
2. My highway land was acquired in 2010, before the 2015 Order. Is there anything I can claim? Yes. The 2015 Order is prospective from 1 January 2015 and does not reach a 2010 acquisition. But Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304 struck down s.3J of the NH Act insofar as it denied solatium and interest, and held that the 1894-Act solatium (s.23(2)) and interest (s.28) apply to National Highways acquisitions in the 1997-2015 window. Your 2010 acquisition falls squarely within that window, so you may claim solatium and interest, aided by the Supreme Court’s order dated 4 February 2025 applying Tarsem Singh retrospectively.
3. Does the 2015 Order apply to railway acquisitions as well as highways? Yes. The Removal of Difficulties Order, 2015 extends the First, Second and Third Schedule benefits to all thirteen Fourth-Schedule enactments, which expressly include the Railways Act, 1989 (Chapter IVA acquisitions) as well as the National Highways Act, 1956. The MoRTH guidelines of 28 December 2017 are specific to National Highways, but the Order itself is broader.
4. Where is compensation actually determined and challenged in these special-Act acquisitions? That depends on the statute. Under the National Highways Act, land acquisition compensation is fixed by a Competent Authority under s.3G, with arbitration under s.3G(5)-(6); under the Railways Act, by a Competent Authority under Chapter IVA. The forums, and the routes for challenging the resulting awards, are discussed in Spoke 3 of this series.

Sources & authorities

• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — ss.26 (market value), 29 (value of assets), 30 (solatium), 105 & 105(3) (Fourth-Schedule enactments), 113 & 113(1) (power to remove difficulties); First, Second, Third and Fourth Schedules
• RFCTLARR (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015, dated 28 August 2015 (issued under s.113(1) read with s.105(3)) — extending the First, Second and Third Schedule benefits to the thirteen Fourth-Schedule enactments, deemed effective 1 January 2015
• MoRTH guidelines dated 28 December 2017 — First Schedule of RFCTLARR to apply to National Highways acquisitions
• National Highways Act, 1956 — ss.3G, 3G(5), 3G(6), 3J
• Railways Act, 1989 — Chapter IVA (ss.20A–20W)
• Land Acquisition Act, 1894 — ss.23(1), 23(2) (solatium), 28 (interest)
• Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2019) 9 SCC 304 (reaffirmed and applied retrospectively by SC order dated 4 February 2025)

The post Harmonizing Land Acquisition Compensation across Special Acts: The 2015 Order and Tarsem Singh appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

After the Removal of Difficulties Order of 2015 and the harmonisation that followed, a landowner acquired under the National Highways Act, 1956 or the Railways Act, 1989 is, in principle, entitled to compensation on the same generous scale as one acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The quantum has been brought broadly into line. Land acquisition compensation enhancement — the route to more — has not.

This is the point most claimants miss, and it is the point that decides cases. Two landowners may be equally under-compensated — the same jantri-driven award, the same ignored sale deeds — and yet one can obtain a full re-determination of value while the other cannot get a rupee more, no matter how plainly the award is wrong on the merits. The difference lies entirely in which statute took the land, because each statute channels the dispute into a different forum, on a different trigger, subject to a very different standard of review.

This article sets the three forums side by side — the s.64 reference under the 2013 Act, the arbitration under s.3G of the National Highways Act, and the arbitration mechanism under Chapter IVA of the Railways Act — and draws out the one structural distinction that should govern strategy from day one: a LARR reference gives you a fresh determination on the merits; an arbitral award, once made, can only be set aside, never enhanced.

This is the third spoke in a nine-part series on fair compensation in Indian land acquisition; see Fair Compensation in Indian Land Acquisition: LARR, Railways and National Highways — A Practitioner’s Map for the full map. The market-value evidence you assemble is what you deploy once you know which of these forums applies to your acquisition — see Determining Market Value in Land Acquisition: The Evidentiary Battleground (Spoke 2).

The three architectures for enhancing land acquisition compensation

(A) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — reference to the LARR Authority

The 2013 Act is built around a person who is dissatisfied but has not accepted. Once the Collector makes the award under s.23, a person interested who has not accepted it may apply to the Collector under s.64 to refer the dispute to the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority constituted under s.51. The matters that may be referred are broad: the measurement of the land, the amount of the compensation, the persons to whom it is payable, and the apportionment of the compensation among the persons interested.

The reference is not a mere appeal on the record. Under s.69, the Authority determines the compensation afresh — it holds its own enquiry and makes its own award, applying the market-value machinery of s.26 (the higher of jantri under s.26(1)(a) and the average of the top-50% sale deeds under s.26(1)(b)), the parameters in s.28, the value of assets under s.29, and the solatium and additional components in s.30. This is a full merits re-determination. From the Authority’s award, an appeal lies to the High Court under s.74.

Because the reference under s.69 turns on the same parameters in s.28, it is also the forum in which severance, injurious affection and other frequently-omitted heads must be affirmatively claimed — the subject of The Heads Owners Forget: Severance, Injurious Affection and Partial Taking (Spoke 7).

Two features deserve emphasis. First, there is no arbitration under the 2013 Act at all — the dispute-resolution architecture is Collector → LARR Authority → High Court, a judicial and quasi-judicial chain throughout. Second, the right to seek a reference is hedged by a strict limitation under s.64. A person who has received the award must apply within the period prescribed by s.64 — described qualitatively, a short outer window running from the award or from notice of it. A claimant who accepts the award, or who lets the s.64 period lapse, forfeits the reference altogether. The discipline of the clock is as important here as the merits.

(B) National Highways Act, 1956 — arbitration under s.3G(5)

The National Highways Act runs on a wholly different logic. Compensation is first determined by the Competent Authority under s.3G. If either party — the landowner or the acquiring authority — is dissatisfied with that determination, the dispute does not go to a court. It goes to an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government under s.3G(5), and by force of s.3G(6) the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 governs those proceedings.

That structural fact carries a criticism that a claimant should understand before entering the process: the arbitrator is appointed by the Central Government, which is, in substance, the party on the acquiring side. The neutrality that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act presumes sits uneasily with a mechanism in which one side names the tribunal. The 2015 harmonisation and the MoRTH guidelines of 28 December 2017 have raised the substantive compensation payable in NH acquisitions to First-Schedule levels; they have not altered who decides or how the decision is reviewed.

Review of the arbitral award lies under s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — the setting-aside jurisdiction, discussed in detail in The Limits of Challenging a National Highways Arbitral Award under Section 34 (Spoke 4). For present purposes the critical point is the ceiling on that jurisdiction, taken up below.

(C) Railways Act, 1989 — Chapter IVA and its arbitration

Land taken for a “special railway project” under Chapter IVA (ss.20A–20W) of the Railways Act, 1989 follows a parallel design. Notification is under s.20A, declaration and vesting under s.20E, and compensation is determined by the Competent Authority under s.20F, with an arbitration mechanism provided within the Chapter for a dissatisfied party. Structurally, this mirrors the National Highways route far more closely than the LARR route: an administrative determination followed by arbitration, rather than a reference to a judicial authority.

On quantum, the position was corrected by the RFCTLARR (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015 dated 28 August 2015, made under s.113(1) read with s.105(3) of the 2013 Act, which extended the compensation, R&R and infrastructure benefits of the First, Second and Third Schedules to the thirteen Fourth-Schedule enactments — the Railways Act among them — deemed effective 1 January 2015. So RFCTLARR-level compensation now applies to Railways Act acquisitions. As with the National Highways Act, the enhancement of quantum did not change the forum or the standard of review, which remains arbitral.

The distinction that decides cases: re-determination versus setting aside

Here is the fault line. Under the 2013 Act, the LARR Authority, on a s.64 reference, re-determines compensation under s.69. If the Collector’s award was too low — because it leaned on jantri and ignored genuine, proximate sale deeds — the Authority can simply fix the correct, higher figure. That is the ordinary function of the forum.

Under the National Highways Act and the Railways Act, the challenge forum is arbitration followed by s.34. And under s.34 a court has no power to modify or enhance the award. This is settled by Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem, (2021) 9 SCC 1, which holds that under s.34 a court may set aside an arbitral award but cannot modify or enhance it, including compensation fixed under s.3G of the NH Act. The court’s grounds are narrow — the setting-aside grounds of s.34, including patent illegality under s.34(2A) for a domestic award, which as Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131 explains reaches a finding based on no evidence or one ignoring vital evidence, but does not license a re-appreciation of evidence.

The practical consequence is stark. Suppose the identical error — a Competent Authority or Collector who valued land at guideline rates and disregarded the sale deeds, contrary to Jawajee Naganatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer and the line of authority on comparable sales (examined in full in Spoke 2). Under LARR, the claimant applies under s.64 and the Authority substitutes the correct market value. Under the NH or Railways route, the best the claimant can achieve under s.34 is to have the award set aside — and even then not always with a re-determination in hand, but potentially a remit that starts the arbitral clock afresh. The same under-valuation is far easier to correct under LARR than under the arbitral route, because only the LARR forum is empowered to give the claimant the higher number directly.

This asymmetry should shape expectations at the outset. Where the acquisition is under the 2013 Act, the objective is a merits re-determination and the effort goes into building the comparable-sales case for the Authority. Where the acquisition is under the NH Act or the Railways Act, the claimant’s leverage is at the arbitration stage — because once the arbitral award is made, s.34 offers a demolition tool, not a re-valuation tool.

Which forum, what it means for you

Limitation discipline across the forums

Each forum keeps its own clock, and each clock is unforgiving.

Under the 2013 Act, the right to a reference exists only if the claimant applies to the Collector within the period prescribed by s.64 and has not accepted the award. Miss the window or accept the award, and the reference is gone.

Under the National Highways Act and the Railways Act, once the arbitral award is made the challenge is governed by s.34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — three months from receipt of the signed copy of the award, extendable by a further thirty days on sufficient cause, “but not thereafter.” The Supreme Court has read those words strictly: Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470 holds that “but not thereafter” excludes s.5 of the Limitation Act; and State of Maharashtra v. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 4 SCC 616 fixes the start of the clock at receipt of the signed copy of the award under s.31(5). The strictness of that s.34 clock is examined in The Limits of Challenging a National Highways Arbitral Award under Section 34 (Spoke 4); here it is enough to say that the arbitral route punishes delay far more mechanically than the LARR route, and that a claimant who wishes to preserve a challenge must diarise from the date of the signed copy, not from any later or informal intimation.

Key takeaways

• Quantum has converged; forum has not. After the 2015 Removal of Difficulties Order, NH and Railways acquisitions attract RFCTLARR-level compensation, but the machinery for enhancing land acquisition compensation differs fundamentally between the three statutes.
• LARR gives re-determination; NH and Railways give only setting aside. The LARR Authority re-fixes value on the merits under s.69; an NH or Railways arbitral award can only be set aside under s.34, never modified or enhanced (Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem).
• No arbitration under the 2013 Act. The LARR chain is Collector → LARR Authority (s.51/s.64) → High Court (s.74); it is judicial and quasi-judicial throughout.
• The NH arbitrator is appointed by one side. Under s.3G(5) the Central Government — effectively the acquiring party — appoints the arbitrator, a structural feature claimants should weigh.
• The same under-valuation is easier to correct under LARR. Because only the LARR forum can hand the claimant the higher figure, an identical jantri-driven error is far more readily remedied under the 2013 Act than under the arbitral route.
• Every forum has its own unforgiving clock. The s.64 reference window and the s.34(3) challenge period are both strict; missing either is usually fatal.

Frequently asked questions

My land was taken for a National Highway and I think the award is far too low. Can a court simply increase it?

No. Enhancing your land acquisition compensation doesn’t work that way for NH acquisitions: a challenge to a National Highways arbitral award lies under s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and under Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem, (2021) 9 SCC 1 a court may set the award aside but cannot modify or enhance it. Your leverage is therefore at the arbitration stage itself, before the arbitrator appointed under s.3G(5) — that is where the valuation must be won.

Is there any arbitration under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013?

No. The 2013 Act contains no arbitration mechanism. A dissatisfied claimant who has not accepted the s.23 award applies under s.64 for a reference to the LARR Authority (s.51), which determines compensation afresh under s.69, with an appeal to the High Court under s.74.

Why is it said that under-valuation is easier to correct under LARR than under the NH or Railways route?

Because the forums do different things. On a s.64 reference the LARR Authority re-determines value and can award the correct, higher figure directly — a genuine land acquisition compensation enhancement. Under the NH or Railways route the challenge is by arbitration and then s.34, where the court’s power is confined to setting aside on narrow grounds — it cannot substitute a higher figure. The same error thus yields a direct remedy in one forum and, at best, a fresh round in the other.

How much time do I have to challenge, and from when does it run?

For an NH or Railways arbitral award, s.34(3) allows three months from receipt of the signed copy of the award, extendable by thirty days on sufficient cause, “but not thereafter” — a limit the Supreme Court applies strictly (Popular Construction), with time running from the signed copy under ARK Builders. For a LARR reference, you must apply to the Collector within the period prescribed by s.64. In both cases, do not wait.

Sources & authorities

• Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — ss.23, 26 (incl. 26(1)(a), 26(1)(b)), 28, 29, 30, 51, 64, 69, 74; s.105(3); s.113(1)
• National Highways Act, 1956 — ss.3G, 3G(5), 3G(6)
• Railways Act, 1989 — Chapter IVA, ss.20A, 20E, 20F, 20A–20W
• Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — ss.31(5), 34, 34(2A), 34(3)
• RFCTLARR (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015, dated 28 August 2015 (under s.113(1) r/w s.105(3)) — extending First, Second and Third Schedule benefits to the Fourth-Schedule enactments, deemed effective 1 January 2015
• MoRTH guidelines dated 28 December 2017
• Project Director, NHAI v. M. Hakeem, (2021) 9 SCC 1
• Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI, (2019) 15 SCC 131
• Union of India v. Popular Construction Co., (2001) 8 SCC 470
• State of Maharashtra v. ARK Builders Pvt. Ltd., (2011) 4 SCC 616
• Jawajee Naganatham v. Revenue Divisional Officer, (1994) 4 SCC 595

All authorities independently verified on 20 July 2026.

This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Land acquisition compensation turns on the governing statute, the facts of each acquisition and applicable limitation periods, all of which differ from case to case. Readers should obtain advice specific to their matter before acting. Bhatt & Joshi Associates accepts no liability for reliance on this article without such advice.

The post Three Forums for Land Acquisition Compensation Enhancement in India – s.64 Reference, NH Arbitration and the Railways Act appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.