Finin2min knowledge and practical guidance
When several interested persons agree on division of compensation, the award must specify particulars of apportionment; as between those persons the recorded division has the statutory conclusive-evidence effect.
Section 75 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 addresses how an award records an agreed division of compensation among multiple interested persons. Its conclusive-evidence effect applies to the recorded apportionment as between those persons, not to every question about title or entitlement.
Several persons must be interested in the compensation for acquired land, and those persons must agree on the proposed division. The statutory condition is agreement, not merely a surveyor’s estimate or the Collector’s preferred allocation.
The particulars of the agreed division must be specified in the award. The split should identify each claimant, share or amount and basis. A private oral understanding that is never reflected in the award should not be treated as fulfilment of this recording requirement.
As between the persons who reached the agreement, the award is conclusive evidence of the correctness of the apportionment. This should not be exaggerated into a finding binding absent parties or conclusively deciding every underlying civil title question.
If interested persons do not agree, Section 76 addresses disputes over apportionment or persons entitled. Section 77 deals with payment or deposit. Record competing claims and the statutory forum rather than unilaterally splitting payment.
An agreement should be reduced to a clear schedule of interested persons, consideration of all known entitlement claims, proposed amounts and consent signatures. The Collector’s award should identify the agreement rather than simply quote an unexplained figure; practitioners should reconcile awarded compensation and separately applicable statutory amounts.
If a claimant objects, an award purporting to record consensual apportionment may be factually contested. Section 76 should be considered where agreement does not exist; Section 77 becomes relevant when payment cannot properly be made to a particular person. The same award can contain an agreed split for some persons and unresolved questions requiring separate handling.
Example: land acquired for a road has ₹60 lakh in award compensation. Two undisputed co-owners agree in writing to ₹36 lakh and ₹24 lakh. The Collector records those particulars in the award under Section 75. If a third claimant later asserts an unexamined inheritance interest, the Section 75 entry should not automatically be presented as deciding that person’s separate rights.
Signed claimant agreement; award and annexures; identity and title documents; payment/deposit records.
When there are several persons interested, if such persons agree in the apportionment of the compensation, the particulars of such apportionment shall be specified in the award, and as between such persons the award shall be conclusive evidence of the correctness of the apportionment.
Source: Act 30 of 2013, Gazette text as in the consolidated copy hosted by the Telangana High Court. Check India Code for later amendments.
No. It addresses the recording and evidentiary effect of agreed apportionment; contested entitlements require a separate statutory route.
Award, written agreement, claimant identity, title/revenue records, authority correspondence and deposit or payment acknowledgements.
This explanation is educational and depends on the law, applicable date, jurisdiction and supporting facts. Consult the cited primary instruments for formal filing, classification and dispute decisions.