By S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors · Published 15 May 2026 · Informational content, not legal advice
About this article: A general explainer prepared by S&S Co. Advocates & Solicitors on a recurring type of dispute. It does not report a specific judgment or order, names no parties and gives no case citation, so it should not be cited as authority. Law and practice change; please verify against the current statute and primary sources before relying on it.
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) fixes compensation for acquired land on the basis of its market value, which Section 26 says is to be determined by reference to the minimum land value in the area, the average of sale prices for similar land in the vicinity during a specified period, or the consented amount in private-project cases, whichever is higher. The Act then provides for a multiplication factor for rural areas and for solatium, in addition to rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements.
In references and appeals, landowners commonly rely on sale deeds of other land to argue for a higher market value. Courts have long required comparable instances to be genuinely comparable in nature, location, use and potential, and they look at features such as access, proximity to developed areas and land classification. Nearness of villages is not enough if there are material differences between the lands.
Because solatium, multipliers and other entitlements are calculated on the market value, an error at this stage affects the whole award. An enhancement that rests on loosely comparable instances can be set aside on appeal and sent back for fresh determination.