RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — S. 26(1)–(3) — Determination of market value — Non-availability of sale deeds — Application of S. 26(3) — Whether multiplication factor under First Schedule applies — Held, Yes. Held, determination under S. 26(3) is still a valuation “based on S. 26(1)” using adjoining-area data; hence multiplication factor under S. 26(2) applies. State’s 2012 rate notification (pre-2013 Act) cannot be treated as a statutory S. 26(3) notification. Government of India Notification S.O. 425(E) dt. 09-02-2016 prescribing MF=2 for rural areas applies. Reference Court rightly applied multiplication factor of 2. Rural Development Ministry Notification S.O. 425(E)/2016 applied.

(A) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — Ss. 23, 26(1)–(3), 27 — Determination of market value — Non-availability of sale deeds — Application of S. 26(3) — Whether multiplication factor under First Schedule applies — Held, Yes.

(¶66, ¶68)
Held, determination under S. 26(3) is still a valuation “based on S. 26(1)” because S. 26(3) requires adoption of the same principles as S. 26(1) using adjoining-area data. Therefore, multiplication factor under S. 26(2) automatically applies. Determination under S. 26(3) cannot be treated differently from S. 26(1) for purposes of applying the multiplier.

Government of India Notification S.O. 425(E) dated 09-02-2016 prescribing MF = 2 for all rural areas applies.
Reference Authority rightly applied MF=2.
Relying paras: ¶66, ¶68

(B) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — S. 26(3) — What constitutes a valid “market value notification” for S. 26(3) — Whether a pre-2013 State Land Value Notification can be used — Held, No.

(¶67)
State Government Notification dated 16-05-2012 (issued before the enactment of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013) cannot be treated as a statutory notification under S. 26(3). A notification under S. 26(3) must be issued under the RFCTLARR Act regime and cannot be inferred from a pre-Act executive tariff.
Relying para: ¶67

(C) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — Ss. 23, 26 — Failure of Collector to follow mandatory criteria — Average sale price and vicinity-area comparables not considered — Award defective.

(¶61)
Collector did not follow S. 23 and S. 26 methodology; no effort was made to identify average sale price for similar land in the nearest village or vicinity area. Collector relied only on a 2012 State rate circular (pre-Act), contrary to the statutory mandate. Reference Court justified in reassessing market value.
Relying para: ¶61

(D) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — Ss. 26–30, 69 — Powers of Reference Authority — Whether Reference Authority can classify land and apply S. 26–30 afresh — Held, Yes.

(¶69)
Classification of land is intrinsic to determination of market value. Under S. 69(1), the Reference Authority must examine whether the Collector followed Ss. 26–30; hence, the Authority itself is empowered to apply Ss. 26–30, including classification and multiplier application.
Relying para: ¶69

(E) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — S. 40(5) proviso — Bar on “additional 75% compensation” — Whether it affects enhancement of compensation — Held, No.

(¶61)
Proviso to S. 40(5) excludes only the additional 75% compensation for defence/sovereignty-related acquisitions. It does not bar reassessment or enhancement of market value under Ss. 23 & 26, nor does it curtail the jurisdiction of the Reference Authority.
Relying para: ¶61

(F) RFCTLARR Act, 2013 — Ss. 26, 107 — State cannot reduce compensation — Only additional/beneficial provisions permissible — State Manuals issued after the Award do not apply.

(¶70)
Arunachal Pradesh Land Acquisition Manual, 2022 could not govern acquisitions where Awards were made earlier (2021). Under S. 107, States can only enhance compensation beyond the Central Act; they cannot prescribe lesser compensation or alter statutory criteria for past acquisitions.
Relying para: ¶70