Land acquisition rehabilitation rules: common cut-off date, pending-village re-determination, and mandatory resettlement benefits

Cut-off date, statutory applicability, rehabilitation benefits and resettlement entitlements were addressed in relation to land acquisition for displaced villages. The discussion states that September 2010 was accepted as the common reckoning date for compensation, with finalized awards left undisturbed. It further explains that the 2013 land acquisition framework applied only to pending, unapproved villages after the relevant notification, while the amended 2006 rehabilitation policy governed employment benefits with a restricted family-based entitlement. Where resettlement plots were unavailable, lump sum cash compensation was discussed as payable, and the Third Schedule amenities and Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste protections were treated as mandatory in resettlement areas.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cut-off date for determining compensation for the acquired lands should be September 2010; (ii) Whether the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to the acquisition and compensation determination in the pending villages; (iii) Whether the Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 as amended in 2013 governs employment benefits and the composition of the family unit; (iv) Whether resettlement plots must be provided and, if not, cash compensation is payable; (v) Whether the amenities and protections under the 2013 rehabilitation framework, including protections for Scheduled Tribes, must be implemented.

Issue (i): Whether the cut-off date for determining compensation for the acquired lands should be September 2010.

Analysis: The compensation exercise had been deferred for decades, and the Court accepted the earlier Gopalpur model fixing the survey date in September 2010 as the common reckoning date. The Court held that reopening the cut-off would unsettle finalized awards and create uncertainty, while the adopted date avoided prejudice to landowners and preserved uniformity across villages. Statutory benefits such as interest and solatium were also held to flow from that common date.

Conclusion: The cut-off date was held to be September 2010, in favour of the landowners.

Issue (ii): Whether the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 applies to the acquisition and compensation determination in the pending villages.

Analysis: The Court held that the 2013 Act did not apply before it came into force, and that for acquisitions under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the beneficial provisions of the First, Second and Third Schedules became applicable only after the Central Government notification dated 28.08.2015. Reports and awards already approved before that date were left undisturbed, but villages whose compensation had not yet been finally approved had to be re-determined under the 2013 Act framework.

Conclusion: The First Schedule to the 2013 Act was held applicable only to the pending, unapproved villages, namely Kiripsira, Ratansara, Jhupuranga and Tumulia, in favour of the landowners for those villages and against reopening of finalized villages.

Issue (iii): Whether the Orissa Resettlement and Rehabilitation Policy, 2006 as amended in 2013 governs employment benefits and the composition of the family unit.

Analysis: The Court held that the 2006 policy, as amended in 2013, is the governing and more beneficial rehabilitation regime for employment benefits. It interpreted the family definition purposively to permit employment to the head of the family, one major son, or in the absence or inability of a son, one major grandson, while unmarried daughters were separately protected. The Court also held that completed employment awards could not be reopened merely because of the later policy amendment.

Conclusion: The amended 2006 policy was held applicable for employment benefits, with family entitlement limited as interpreted by the Court, in favour of the landowners in principle but against multiple concurrent employment claims.

Issue (iv): Whether resettlement plots must be provided and, if not, cash compensation is payable.

Analysis: The Court held that the State and MCL remained obliged to develop and allot resettlement plots where available, after consultation through the Collector and nodal officers. Where plots were unavailable or could not be handed over within the stipulated time, the displaced family would receive lump sum cash compensation. The Court fixed the amount at Rs.25 lakhs for families unable to secure plots, and also provided for allotment by draw of lots where plots were insufficient.

Conclusion: Resettlement plots were directed to be developed and allotted, and failing that, cash compensation of Rs.25 lakhs was held payable, in favour of the landowners.

Issue (v): Whether the amenities and protections under the 2013 rehabilitation framework, including protections for Scheduled Tribes, must be implemented.

Analysis: The Court held that the Third Schedule amenities under the 2013 Act were mandatory in the resettlement areas, including schools, health facilities, drinking water, roads, community centres and allied infrastructure. It also held that displaced Scheduled Tribe and Scheduled Caste families must retain their status and receive fresh certificates, with the protective mandate of Sections 41 and 42 being applicable to preserve their entitlements after involuntary displacement.

Conclusion: The amenities and Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe protections were held mandatory, in favour of the displaced families.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings were disposed of with comprehensive directions on compensation, rehabilitation, resettlement, employment, amenities, and caste-status protection, while keeping finalized awards undisturbed and remitting only the pending villages for re-determination under the applicable statutory regime.

Ratio Decidendi: Where acquisition-related compensation and rehabilitation remain unfinalized, the later beneficial statutory regime may apply from the date its operation is lawfully triggered, but completed awards cannot be reopened merely because of a subsequent policy change; rehabilitation entitlements must be construed purposively to secure substantive relief rather than multiplicity of claims.

---