Introduction

The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act) revolutionized land acquisition procedures in India by replacing the colonial-era Land Acquisition Act of 1894. This landmark legislation introduced a paradigm shift toward fair compensation mechanisms, transparent procedures, and comprehensive rehabilitation frameworks. The Act establishes a structured methodology for compensation calculation under land acquisition Act 2013 that balances public purpose requirements with landowner rights, ensuring equitable treatment for all affected parties.

The compensation framework under the RFCTLARR Act represents a fundamental departure from arbitrary valuation methods, implementing scientifically determined market-based assessments coupled with multiplication factors and additional benefits. This comprehensive approach acknowledges not merely the land value but encompasses all attached assets, providing solatium for involuntary displacement while incorporating rehabilitation and resettlement entitlements. The Act’s compensation structure reflects the constitutional mandate to provide just compensation as enshrined in Article 300A of the Constitution, which declares that no person shall be deprived of property except by authority of law.

Legal Framework Governing Compensation Calculation Under Land Acquisition Act 2013

Statutory Provisions and Constitutional Foundation

The compensation determination mechanism under the Land Acquisition Act 2013 operates within a robust legal framework anchored in constitutional principles and statutory mandates. Section 26 of the Act establishes the foundational criteria for market value determination, requiring collectors to adopt specific methodologies that ensure objectivity and fairness in valuation processes [1]. The constitutional underpinning derives from Article 300A, which, despite its relocation from Part III to Part XII following the 44th Amendment, continues providing substantive protection against arbitrary deprivation of property.

The Supreme Court in Kolkata Municipal Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) articulated seven constitutional tests for land acquisition, emphasizing that proper procedural safeguards must accompany compensation provisions to ensure constitutional validity [2]. These procedural sub-rights include the right to notice, right to be heard, right to receive reasons, right to fair and adequate compensation, right to review and appeal, right to speedy disposal, and right to conclusion of acquisition proceedings.

The legislative intent behind the RFCTLARR Act, as evident from its Statement of Objects and Reasons, aimed to create a humane, participative, and transparent process ensuring that affected persons become development partners rather than victims of state action. This philosophy permeates the Compensation Calculation Under Land Acquisition Act 2013, mandating enhanced payments that reflect true economic loss while providing additional benefits for rehabilitation and resettlement.

Regulatory Framework and Implementation Guidelines

The RFCTLARR Act empowers both Central and State governments to formulate rules and regulations governing Compensation Calculation Under Land Acquisition Act 2013 specifics. Section 109 grants rule-making powers to appropriate governments, enabling them to prescribe detailed procedures for market value determination, multiplication factor application, and payment mechanisms. The Central Government issued the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015, clarifying that compensation provisions under the First Schedule apply to all acquisitions under enactments specified in the Fourth Schedule.

State governments have exercised their rule-making powers to adapt the Act’s provisions to local conditions while maintaining compliance with central mandates. Maharashtra enacted the Maharashtra Land Acquisition Rules, 2014 (amended in 2023), while Karnataka implemented the Karnataka Land Acquisition Rules, 2015. These state-specific regulations address regional variations in land markets while ensuring uniform application of compensation principles.

Market Value Determination Under Section 26

Criteria for Market Value Assessment

Section 26 establishes the cornerstone of compensation calculation Under land acquisition act 2013 by mandating specific criteria for market value determination. The Collector must adopt the highest value derived from three distinct sources: first, the market value specified in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 for registration of sale deeds or agreements to sell in the relevant area; second, the average sale price for similar land in the nearest village or vicinity; and third, the consented compensation amount agreed upon for private company or public-private partnership acquisitions.

The average sale price determination requires examination of registered sale deeds or agreements for similar land types during the three years immediately preceding the proposed acquisition. Critically, Explanation 2 to Section 26 mandates consideration of one-half of the total number of sale deeds reflecting the highest sale prices, ensuring that valuation reflects genuine market conditions rather than distressed sales or speculative transactions.

The Act incorporates important safeguards against manipulation through Explanations 3 and 4, which exclude compensation amounts paid under previous RFCTLARR Act acquisitions and authorize collectors to discount prices not indicative of actual prevailing market values. These provisions prevent artificial inflation of land values while ensuring realistic market-based assessments.

Reference Date and Valuation Methodology

The proviso to Section 26(1) establishes the reference date for market value determination as the date of preliminary notification under Section 11. This fixed reference point prevents speculation and ensures that compensation reflects land values at the acquisition announcement rather than fluctuating market conditions during prolonged proceedings. However, recent Supreme Court jurisprudence recognizes exceptional circumstances where delayed compensation disbursement may warrant valuation date adjustment.

In Bernanard Francis Joseph Vaz v. State of Goa (2025), the Supreme Court held that landowners are entitled to current market value when compensation payment is inordinately delayed [3]. The Court emphasized that prolonged delays in compensation disbursement violate Article 300A rights, potentially justifying valuation date modification in exceptional circumstances where government delays are unconscionable.

The valuation methodology requires comprehensive assessment of comparable transactions, considering factors such as land classification, location, accessibility, development potential, and existing infrastructure. Collectors must engage qualified valuers and technical experts to ensure accurate assessments, particularly for specialized properties or unique land parcels lacking direct comparables.

Multiplication Factors Under the First Schedule

Urban and Rural Multiplication Framework

Section 26(2) mandates multiplication of calculated market value by factors specified in the First Schedule, creating a graduated compensation system that recognizes differential land markets and development patterns. The First Schedule establishes distinct multiplication factors for urban and rural areas, reflecting varying infrastructure availability, market dynamics, and displacement impacts.

For urban areas, the multiplication factor typically remains 1.0, meaning landowners receive the calculated market value without additional enhancement. However, the Act recognizes that urban land markets generally reflect true development potential through regular transactions and established valuation mechanisms.

Rural areas receive enhanced protection through multiplication factors ranging from 1.0 to 2.0, depending on distance from urban centers and infrastructure availability. The precise multiplication factors are determined by state governments considering regional characteristics, agricultural productivity, and rural-urban connectivity. This graduated approach acknowledges that rural landowners often lack alternative livelihood opportunities and require enhanced compensation to rebuild their economic foundations.

State Government Discretion and Factor Determination

The First Schedule empowers state governments to notify specific multiplication factors within the prescribed range, considering local conditions and development patterns. States must balance several factors including agricultural productivity, rural employment opportunities, infrastructure development, and market maturity when determining appropriate multiplication factors.

The legislative design recognizes that uniform multiplication factors cannot address India’s diverse geographical and economic conditions. States with well-developed rural infrastructure may apply lower multiplication factors, while regions with limited alternative economic opportunities warrant higher enhancement factors. This flexibility ensures that compensation calculations reflect actual displacement impacts rather than arbitrary uniform standards.

Recent judicial pronouncements emphasize that multiplication factor determination must follow objective criteria rather than administrative convenience. Courts have scrutinized state government decisions to ensure that factor selection reflects genuine assessment of rural-urban differentials and displacement impacts rather than fiscal considerations.

Assets Attached to Land Under Section 27

Comprehensive Asset Valuation Framework

Section 27 mandates inclusion of all assets attached to land in compensation calculations, ensuring that landowners receive payment for the complete property package rather than bare land value alone. This provision reflects the Act’s comprehensive approach to compensation, recognizing that land value encompasses not merely soil but all improvements, structures, and attached assets that contribute to property utility and economic value.

The asset valuation framework requires detailed assessment of buildings, structures, wells, tube wells, trees, standing crops, and any other improvements that enhance land productivity or utility. Section 29 specifically mandates engagement of competent engineers and specialists for building valuation, experienced agricultural experts for tree and crop assessment, and other relevant professionals to ensure accurate asset quantification.

Asset valuation must reflect replacement cost rather than depreciated values, ensuring that landowners can rebuild equivalent facilities at current market prices. This approach acknowledges that forced acquisition should not result in economic diminishment beyond the land loss itself, requiring compensation sufficient for complete property reconstitution.

Specialized Valuation Requirements

The Act recognizes that different asset categories require specialized expertise for accurate valuation. Buildings and structures demand engineering assessment considering construction quality, age, condition, and replacement costs at current material and labor prices. Agricultural assets including fruit trees, timber trees, and specialized crops require horticultural or agricultural expertise to determine productive capacity and replacement costs.

Water sources including wells, tube wells, and bore wells receive special attention given their critical importance for agricultural and domestic use. Valuation must consider drilling costs, equipment value, water yield, and strategic importance for continued agricultural operations. The Act ensures that compensation reflects not merely installation costs but also the strategic value of assured water access.

Infrastructure improvements including approach roads, compound walls, gates, and utility connections require separate assessment to ensure comprehensive compensation. These improvements often represent substantial investments that enhance overall property value and utility, warranting specific recognition in compensation calculations.

Solatium Calculation Under Section 30

Legal Framework and Judicial Interpretation

Section 30 establishes the solatium framework, mandating additional payment equivalent to 100% of determined compensation amount to acknowledge the involuntary nature of land acquisition. This provision recognizes that forced acquisition creates unique hardships beyond mere economic loss, requiring additional compensation to address psychological, social, and transitional impacts.

The Supreme Court in RB Dealers Private Limited v. Metro Railway, Kolkata (2019) definitively clarified solatium calculation methodology, holding that solatium must be calculated only on market value plus asset values determined under Sections 26, 27, and 28, excluding the 12% annual interest component payable under Section 30(3) [4]. This landmark judgment resolved conflicting interpretations regarding solatium base calculation, establishing that interest payments represent separate compensation components rather than solatium calculation bases.

The Court emphasized that solatium serves distinct compensatory purposes from interest payments, addressing involuntary displacement impacts rather than delayed payment consequences. This interpretation ensures that landowners receive appropriate solatium amounts based on actual property values while maintaining separation between different compensation components serving distinct purposes.

Calculation Methodology and Practical Application

Solatium calculation requires systematic approach beginning with market value determination under Section 26, followed by asset value addition under Section 27, and culminating in 100% enhancement under Section 30(1). This methodology ensures transparent calculation while preventing double counting or mathematical errors that could disadvantage either landowners or acquiring authorities.

The calculation sequence follows established patterns: first, determine basic market value using Section 26 criteria; second, apply appropriate multiplication factors from the First Schedule; third, add asset values from Section 27 assessment; fourth, calculate solatium as 100% of the combined amount; and finally, add interest payments under Section 30(3) as separate compensation components.

Practical implementation requires careful documentation of each calculation step to ensure transparency and enable verification by affected parties or reviewing authorities. Collectors must maintain detailed records showing market value sources, multiplication factor application, asset valuation methods, and final solatium calculations to support their determinations.

Interest Payments and Additional Compensation

Interest Calculation Framework

Section 30(3) mandates interest payments at 12% per annum on market value from Social Impact Assessment publication date until award date or possession taking, whichever occurs first. This provision acknowledges that acquisition proceedings create financial hardship through delayed compensation, requiring additional payments to compensate for lost investment opportunities and inflation impacts.

Interest calculation requires precise determination of relevant time periods, excluding periods when proceedings were stayed by court orders or injunctions. The exclusion provision prevents penalizing acquiring authorities for delays beyond their control while ensuring that landowners receive appropriate compensation for government-caused delays.

The 12% annual interest rate reflects legislative assessment of appropriate compensation for delayed payments, considering prevailing interest rates and inflation impacts. This rate provides meaningful compensation for lost opportunities while remaining within reasonable fiscal parameters for acquiring authorities.

Enhanced Interest for Delayed Payments

Section 80 establishes enhanced interest rates for payments not made within prescribed timeframes, mandating 9% annual interest until payment or deposit, escalating to 15% for payments delayed beyond one year from possession taking. This graduated interest structure incentivizes prompt payment while providing meaningful compensation for extended delays.

The enhanced interest framework recognizes that prolonged payment delays create severe hardship for displaced landowners who cannot rebuild their lives without compensation access. The 15% rate for extended delays provides substantial incentive for acquiring authorities to prioritize prompt payment while ensuring adequate compensation for affected parties.

Recent Supreme Court decisions emphasize that delayed compensation violates constitutional rights, potentially warranting additional remedies beyond statutory interest payments. Courts increasingly scrutinize payment delays and may order enhanced compensation or other remedies for unconscionable delays in compensation disbursement.

Recent Judicial Developments and Case Law

Supreme Court Pronouncements on Compensation Methodology

Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has refined compensation calculation principles while addressing emerging issues in land acquisition practice. In Central Warehousing Corporation v. Thakur Dwara Kalan (2023), the Court reduced annual increase rates from 15% to 8%, emphasizing that cumulative increase grants are not absolute entitlements but discretionary enhancements based on specific circumstances [5].

The Court in Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh v. Executive Engineer (2024) reiterated that cumulative increase in market value is not an absolute rule, requiring case-specific assessment of circumstances justifying such enhancements [6]. This approach prevents automatic application of enhancement formulas while ensuring that legitimate cases receive appropriate compensation adjustments.

Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram (2024) addressed compensation delays, holding that prolonged delays in compensation payment violate Article 300A rights and may warrant additional remedies beyond statutory provisions [7]. This decision strengthens landowner protection against administrative delays while emphasizing government obligations for prompt compensation disbursement.

High Court Decisions and Regional Variations

Various High Courts have addressed specific compensation calculation issues, providing guidance on complex valuation problems and procedural requirements. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander (2023) held that annual increase rates could vary from 8% to 15% based on specific circumstances, providing flexibility in compensation determination [8].

Regional variations in compensation calculation reflect different market conditions, agricultural patterns, and development levels across Indian states. Courts increasingly recognize that uniform compensation formulas may not address diverse regional conditions, requiring flexible approaches that consider local circumstances while maintaining constitutional protection standards.

The trend toward context-specific compensation determination reflects judicial recognition that land acquisition impacts vary significantly across regions, requiring tailored approaches that address actual displacement consequences rather than formulaic applications of statutory provisions.

Practical Implementation Challenges and Solutions

Administrative Capacity and Technical Expertise

Effective compensation calculation requires substantial administrative capacity and technical expertise often lacking in district-level revenue departments. Collectors must coordinate with multiple specialists including valuers, engineers, agricultural experts, and legal advisors to ensure accurate compensation determination within statutory timeframes.

Training programs for revenue officials, standardized valuation procedures, and technical support systems can address capacity constraints while ensuring consistent application of compensation principles. State governments increasingly invest in capacity building initiatives to improve compensation calculation accuracy and reduce disputes.

Technology solutions including digital valuation tools, automated calculation systems, and online databases of comparable sales can enhance accuracy while reducing processing time. These innovations enable more sophisticated analysis while maintaining transparency and accountability in compensation determination.

Dispute Resolution and Appeals

The Act establishes comprehensive dispute resolution mechanisms through Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authorities with appeal rights to High Courts. This multi-tier system provides affected parties with meaningful review opportunities while ensuring expert consideration of technical compensation issues.

Effective dispute resolution requires authorities with appropriate technical expertise and adequate resources to handle complex valuation disputes. The six-month disposal timeline for Authority proceedings demands efficient case management and streamlined procedures to prevent unnecessary delays.

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms including mediation and arbitration could supplement formal proceedings, particularly for technical valuation disputes where expert determination might resolve issues more efficiently than adversarial proceedings.

Conclusion

The compensation calculation framework under the RFCTLARR Act represents a significant advancement in protecting landowner rights while facilitating necessary development projects. The Act’s comprehensive methodology addressing market value determination, multiplication factors, asset valuation, solatium calculation, and interest payments ensures fair compensation that acknowledges both economic loss and displacement impacts.

Recent judicial developments continue refining compensation principles while addressing emerging implementation challenges. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on constitutional protection, procedural fairness, and prompt payment strengthens landowner protection while providing clearer guidance for acquiring authorities.

Successful implementation requires continued attention to administrative capacity building, technology adoption, and dispute resolution enhancement. The Act’s compensation framework provides solid foundation for fair land acquisition, but effective implementation demands sustained commitment to its principles and continued refinement based on practical experience.

The evolution toward more sophisticated compensation calculation reflects broader recognition that land acquisition must balance development needs with individual rights, requiring careful attention to both procedural fairness and substantive justice. The RFCTLARR Act’s compensation framework provides the necessary tools for achieving this balance, but success depends on faithful implementation and continued judicial oversight.

References

[1] The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Section 26. Available at: https://www.indiacode.nic.in/handle/123456789/2121 

[2] Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 6466 of 2024, Supreme Court of India. Available at: https://cjp.org.in/supreme-court-lays-down-7-constitutional-tests-for-land-acquisition/ 

[3] Bernanard Francis Joseph Vaz and Others v. State of Goa, Supreme Court of India, January 3, 2025. Available at: https://www.barandbench.com/news/landowners-entitled-market-value-acquired-land-when-compensation-delayed-supreme-court 

[4] RB Dealers Private Limited v. The Metro Railway, Kolkata, Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14078 of 2019, Supreme Court of India, July 17, 2019. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176611920/ 

[5] Central Warehousing Corporation v. Thakur Dwara Kalan ul-Maruf Baraglan Wala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1361, Supreme Court of India, October 19, 2023. Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/10/28/land-acquisition-compensation-rate-supreme-court-reduces-15-percent-annual-increase-to-8-percent/ 

[6] Manik Panjabrao Kalmegh v. Executive Engineer Bembla Project Division Yavatmal, 2024 INSC 844, Supreme Court of India. Available at: https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/supreme-court/supreme-court-manik-panjabrao-kalmegh-vs-executive-engineer-bembla-project-division-yavatmal-2024-insc-844-1557627 

[7] Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram and Others, Supreme Court of India, 2024. Available at: https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/land-acquisition-compensation-in-exceptional-cases-courts-can-direct-market-value-be-determined-based-on-a-date-after-prelim-notification-supreme-court-279857 

[8] State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander, (2023) 5 SCC 435, Supreme Court of India. Available at: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/10/28/land-acquisition-compensation-rate-supreme-court-reduces-15-percent-annual-increase-to-8-percent/ 

[9] Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India. Available at: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/decoding-income-tax-compensation-compulsory-acquisition.html 

The post Compensation Calculation Under Land Acquisition Act 2013: Methods and Multipliers appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

Introduction

Gandhinagar, Gujarat: In a significant move to streamline the land acquisition process, the Government of Gujarat has introduced Key Reforms in Land Acquisition aimed at making the procedure more systematic, transparent, and time-bound. Through a new resolution issued by the Revenue Department on August 14, 2025, the state has revised the methodology for determining the market value of land under Section 26 of “The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013” (RFCTLARR Act, 2013). This decision is expected to minimize disputes and accelerate developmental projects.

As part of this reform, the state government has rescinded two previous circulars from 2014 and 2022 and established a new “Land Acquisition Valuation Committee” (LAVC) to determine market prices.

Background: The RFCTLARR Act, 2013

Enacted by the Parliament of India in 2013, the RFCTLARR Act replaced the archaic Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The primary objectives of this legislation are to ensure fair compensation for landowners, introduce transparency into the acquisition process, and guarantee the rehabilitation and resettlement of affected families. Section 26 of the Act outlines the criteria for the Collector to determine the market value of the land, which includes considering the value specified for stamp duty, the average sale price of similar land in the vicinity, or the consented compensation amount, whichever is higher.

Key Provisions and Implications of the New Resolution

1. Constitution of the Land Acquisition Valuation Committee (LAVC):

To address complexities and delays in market value determination, the state government has constituted a three-member expert committee. This committee will assist the Collector in assessing the market value of the land. The composition of the LAVC is as follows:

Chairman: The District Collector or another competent officer appointed by the State Government.

Member: Deputy Collector (Stamp Duty), Class-I.

Member: Town Planner, Class-I.

The primary role of this committee is to conduct a fair and accurate valuation of the land and provide recommendations to the Collector, ensuring that the compensation is both just and transparent. However, the final decision regarding the market value will remain with the Collector.

2. Time-bound Determination of Market Value:

Previously, the lack of a clear timeline for determining market value often led to procedural delays, which in turn increased the financial burden on the government. The new resolution explicitly states that the market value must be determined after the publication of the preliminary notification under Section 11(1) of the Act, but before the publication of the final declaration under Section 19(1). This timeline is designed to prevent unnecessary delays and streamline the acquisition process.

3. Streamlining the Process and Mitigating Disputes:

The repeal of the 2014 and 2022 circulars signifies the government’s commitment to simplifying and improving the land acquisition framework. The establishment of a specialized committee and the introduction of a clear timeline are expected to reduce disagreements between landowners and acquiring bodies.

Furthermore, the resolution clarifies that its provisions will also apply to cases where the determination of market value under Section 26 was pending as of the date of the resolution’s publication.

Conclusion

The latest resolution by the Gujarat Government is a pivotal and positive reforms in land acquisition process. The formation of the Land Acquisition Valuation Committee will bring expert oversight to the valuation process, enhancing transparency and fairness. By enforcing a strict timeline, the government aims to ensure that developmental projects are executed without undue delay and that landowners receive fair and prompt compensation. This measure is poised to make the land acquisition process in the state smoother, more efficient, and less contentious, thereby fostering an environment conducive to industrial and infrastructural growth.

References

[1] RFCTLARR Act, 2013

The post Gujarat Government Introduces Key Reforms in Land Acquisition for Transparency and Efficiency appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.

પરિચય

ગાંધીનગર, ગુજરાત: ગુજરાત સરકારે જમીન સંપાદનની પ્રક્રિયાને વધુ સુવ્યવસ્થિત, પારદર્શક અને સમયબદ્ધ બનાવવાના ઉદ્દેશ્ય સાથે એક મહત્વપૂર્ણ નિર્ણય લીધો છે. ૧૪ ઓગસ્ટ, ૨૦૨૫ના રોજ મહેસૂલ વિભાગ દ્વારા જારી કરાયેલા નવા ઠરાવ મુજબ, “જમીન સંપાદન, પુન:સ્થાપન અને પુનર્વસનમાં વાજબી વળતર અને પારદર્શિતાનો અધિકાર અધિનિયમ, ૨૦૧૩” (RFCTLARR Act, 2013) ની કલમ-૨૬ હેઠળ બજારકિંમત નિર્ધારિત કરવાની પ્રક્રિયામાં સુધારો કરવામાં આવ્યો છે. આ નિર્ણયથી જમીન સંપાદન સમયે થતા વિવાદોને ટાળવામાં અને વિકાસલક્ષી પ્રોજેક્ટ્સને વેગ આપવામાં મદદ મળશે.[1]

આ નવા ઠરાવ દ્વારા, રાજ્ય સરકારે ૨૦૧૪ અને ૨૦૨૨ના અગાઉના બે પરિપત્રોને રદ કરી દીધા છે અને બજારભાવ નક્કી કરવા માટે એક નવી “જમીન સંપાદન મૂલ્યાંકન સમિતિ” (Land Acquisition Valuation Committee – LAVC) ની રચના કરી છે.

પૃષ્ઠભૂમિ: જમીન સંપાદન અધિનિયમ, ૨૦૧૩

વર્ષ ૨૦૧૩માં ભારતીય સંસદ દ્વારા પસાર કરાયેલ “જમીન સંપાદન, પુન:સ્થાપન અને પુનર્વસનમાં વાજબી વળતર અને પારદર્શિતાનો અધિકાર અધિનિયમ” એ બ્રિટીશ શાસન સમયના ૧૮૯૪ના જૂના કાયદાનું સ્થાન લીધું હતું. આ નવા કાયદાનો મુખ્ય હેતુ જમીન માલિકોને વાજબી વળતર આપવાનો, સમગ્ર પ્રક્રિયામાં પારદર્શિતા લાવવાનો અને વિસ્થાપિત થતા પરિવારોના પુનર્વસન અને પુન:સ્થાપનની ખાતરી કરવાનો છે. કાયદાની કલમ-૨૬ કલેક્ટર દ્વારા જમીનની બજારકિંમત નક્કી કરવા માટેના માપદંડો સ્પષ્ટ કરે છે, જેમાં સ્ટેમ્પ ડ્યુટી માટે નિર્ધારિત બજારમૂલ્ય અથવા નજીકના વિસ્તારમાં સમાન પ્રકારની જમીનના સરેરાશ વેચાણ ભાવને ધ્યાનમાં લેવાની જોગવાઈ છે.

નવા ઠરાવની મુખ્ય જોગવાઈઓ અને તેની અસરો

૧. જમીન સંપાદન મૂલ્યાંકન સમિતિ (LAVC) ની રચના:

જમીન સંપાદનની પ્રક્રિયામાં બજારભાવ નિર્ધારણને લગતી ગૂંચવણો અને વિલંબને દૂર કરવા માટે, રાજ્ય સરકારે એક ત્રિ-સભ્યોની સમિતિની રચના કરી છે. આ સમિતિ કલેક્ટરને બજારકિંમત નક્કી કરવામાં મદદરૂપ થશે. સમિતિની રચના નીચે મુજબ છે:

અધ્યક્ષ: જિલ્લા કલેક્ટર અથવા રાજ્ય સરકાર દ્વારા નિયુક્ત અન્ય સક્ષમ અધિકારી.

સભ્ય: નાયબ કલેક્ટર (સ્ટેમ્પ ડ્યુટી), વર્ગ-૧.

સભ્ય: નગર નિયોજક, વર્ગ-૧.

આ સમિતિનો મુખ્ય ઉદ્દેશ્ય જમીનની બજારકિંમતનું સચોટ અને નિષ્પક્ષ મૂલ્યાંકન કરી કલેક્ટરને ભલામણ કરવાનો છે, જેથી વળતરની રકમ વાજબી અને પારદર્શક રીતે નક્કી થઈ શકે. જોકે, બજારકિંમત અંગેનો આખરી નિર્ણય કલેક્ટરનો જ ગણાશે.

૨. બજારકિંમત નિર્ધારણનો સમયગાળો:

અગાઉ બજાર કિંમત ક્યારે નક્કી કરવી તે અંગે કોઈ સ્પષ્ટતા ન હોવાને કારણે પ્રક્રિયામાં વિલંબ થતો હતો અને તેના કારણે સરકાર પર નાણાકીય ભારણ પણ વધતું હતું. નવા ઠરાવમાં સ્પષ્ટપણે જણાવવામાં આવ્યું છે કે બજારકિંમતનું નિર્ધારણ અધિનિયમની કલમ-૧૧(૧) હેઠળ પ્રાથમિક જાહેરનામું પ્રસિદ્ધ થયા બાદ, પરંતુ કલમ-૧૯(૧) હેઠળના આખરી જાહેરનામાની પ્રસિદ્ધિ પહેલાં કરવાનું રહેશે. આ સમયમર્યાદા નક્કી થવાથી બિનજરૂરી વિલંબ ટાળી શકાશે.

૩. પ્રક્રિયામાં સુધારો અને વિવાદોનું નિવારણ:

આ ઠરાવ દ્વારા ૨૦૧૪ અને ૨૦૨૨ના જૂના પરિપત્રો રદ કરવામાં આવ્યા છે, જે દર્શાવે છે કે સરકાર જમીન સંપાદન પ્રક્રિયાને વધુ સરળ અને કાર્યક્ષમ બનાવવા પ્રતિબદ્ધ છે. નવી સમિતિની રચના અને સમયમર્યાદાના નિર્ધારણથી જમીન માલિકો અને સંપાદન કરતી સંસ્થાઓ વચ્ચે થતા વિવાદોમાં ઘટાડો થવાની અપેક્ષા છે.

વધુમાં, ઠરાવમાં એ પણ સ્પષ્ટતા કરવામાં આવી છે કે જે કિસ્સાઓમાં આ ઠરાવની પ્રસિદ્ધિની તારીખે કલમ-૨૬ હેઠળ બજારકિંમત નક્કી કરવાની બાકી છે, તેવા કિસ્સાઓમાં પણ આ નવી જોગવાઈઓ લાગુ પડશે.

નિષ્કર્ષ

ગુજરાત સરકારનો આ નવો ઠરાવ જમીન સંપાદનની પ્રક્રિયામાં એક મહત્વપૂર્ણ અને સકારાત્મક સુધારો છે. જમીન સંપાદન મૂલ્યાંકન સમિતિની રચનાથી બજારભાવ નિર્ધારણમાં વધુ નિષ્ણાત અભિપ્રાય મળશે અને પ્રક્રિયામાં પારદર્શિતા વધશે. સમયમર્યાદાનું પાલન થવાથી વિકાસલક્ષી પ્રોજેક્ટ્સ સમયસર પૂર્ણ કરી શકાશે અને જમીન માલિકોને પણ ઝડપથી અને વાજબી વળતર મળી શકશે. આ પગલાથી રાજ્યમાં ઔદ્યોગિક અને માળખાકીય વિકાસ માટે જમીન સંપાદનની પ્રક્રિયા વધુ સરળ અને વિવાદ-મુક્ત બનવાની પ્રબળ સંભાવના છે.

સંદર્ભ

[1] RFCTLARR Act, 2013

The post ગુજરાત સરકાર દ્વારા જમીન સંપાદન પ્રક્રિયામાં પારદર્શિતા અને કાર્યક્ષમતા લાવવા માટે મહત્વપૂર્ણ સુધારા appeared first on Bhatt & Joshi Associates.