Sangita Balbhim More vs Union Of India & Ors.

(Per - Jitendra Jain, J.)

Rule. By consent of learned counsel for the parties. Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage, since the pleadings are completed.

This petition is filed seeking direction restraining respondent no.2-National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and respondents no. 3 to 5 (respondents) from disturbing petitioner’s peaceful possession over 67R land situated at Survey No.50/01 in Mauje Thorlewadi, Taluka Omerga, District Osmanabad and in the alternative, directing respondents to pay compensation before dispossessing the petitioner.

In 1989, petitioner’s husband purchased land admeasuring 67R situated in Survey No.50/01. In 2002, petitioner’s husband expired and thereafter, names of the petitioner and her son were mutated in 7/12 extract. In 2015, petitioner’s son also expired and, therefore, as reflected in 7/12 extract, petitioner remained as sole owner. These facts are undisputed.

On 1 April 2013, respondent no.2 passed an award under Section 3 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (1956 Act) acquiring 26R land in Survey No.50/04 from Mr. Pandurang Yashwant More.

Pursuant to a request made by respondent no.7, a joint measurement was carried out by respondents. It is at this stage that respondents realised that the land of the petitioner to the extent of 28R was affected and not the land of respondent no.7. Therefore, on 23 August 2018, a notice under Section 3G, 3H and 3E of the 1956 Act was issued to the petitioner proposing to acquire 2R land of the petitioner for a consideration of Rs.5,03,764/-. Subsequently, respondents for constructing the highway attempted to dispossess the petitioner from the land admeasuring 28R of the petitioner though by above letter only 2R land was acquired. It is at this stage that the petitioner has sought an order restraining respondents to dispossess her from her land or, in the alternative, pay compensation for acquisition of 26R land. It is on this backdrop that the present petition has been instituted by the petitioner.

Respondent no.4 in its affidavit-in-reply dated 25^th June, 2026 on behalf of the highway authority has admitted in paragraph no. 3 that 26R land of the petitioner has been affected by the development work of the National Highway, but initial award dated 1 April 2013 has reflected area of 26R in the name of respondent no.7 and by a supplementary award dated 28 June 2017, petitioner was paid compensation to the extent of land admeasuring 2R. In paragraph no. 4 of the said affidavit it is further stated that respondent no. 7 has not disputed entitlement of the petitioner to 26R land. There is also an admission by the respondents that they have no objection to the petitioner’s claim if she raises same in arbitration.

Respondent no.7 has made a reference to the arbitrator seeking enhancement of compensation of his land bearing Survey No.50/04. However, in the present matter, we are not concerned with the said land or the dispute between respondent no.7 and the highway authorities.

Mr. Barde, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that there is no award in her favour for acquiring 26R land from Survey No.50/01 till today and, therefore, respondents are not justified in attempting to dispossess the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has no objection if the highway authorities acquires 26R land from Survey No.50/01 provided the award is passed today under the 1956 Act. The petitioner also relied upon admissions made by respondent authorities in affidavit-in-replies in support of his prayers. He further submitted that it is undisputed that even as of today the petitioner is in possession of 26R land in Survey No.50/01.

Mr. Manorkar, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4 submitted that though notices were issued, the petitioner did not object to the acquisition. He fairly admits that there is no award in favour of the petitioner with respect to 26R land in Survey No.50/01. He, however, submitted that respondents are willing to pay Rs.7 lakhs and odd for acquiring 26R land belonging to the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner can approach the arbitrator under Section 3H for getting her compensation.

We have heard Mr. Barde, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sarvadnya, learned Senior Panel Counsel for respondents no.1 and 5, Mr. Manorkar, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 4, Mr. Yadav-Lonikar, learned AGP for respondent no.6 and Mr. Gastgar, learned counsel for respondent no.7.

Before we advert to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to analyse the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956, with regard to the acquisition of land.

Section 3A of the 1956 Act provides for power to acquire land where the Central Government is satisfied that it is required for the purposes of the building, maintenance, management or operation of a National Highway. A notification is declared to acquire such land and, in such a notification, a brief description of the land is provided. The said notification is published in two local newspapers. Section 3B empowers persons authorized by the Central Government to make inspection, survey, measurement, valuation or inquiry, take levels, dig or bore into sub-soil, etc.. Section 3C provides for hearing of objection from a person who is interested in the land. On hearing the objections, the competent authority, by order, either allow or disallow the objections. Such order passed shall be final as per Section 3C(3). Section 3D provides for declaration of acquisition. It provides that on a declaration by notification in the Official Gazette, the land shall be acquired for the purposes mentioned in Section 3A and, on such publication of the declaration, the land shall vest absolutely in the Central Government free from all encumbrances. Section 3D(3) further provides that if the declaration is not made within one year from the date of publication of the notification, then the notification shall cease to have any effect. Section 3E provides for power to take possession. It provides that any land vested in the Central Government under Section 3D(2), and on the amount determined by the competent authority being deposited by the Central Government, the competent authority may, by notice in writing, direct the owners as well as any other person who may be in possession of such land to surrender or deliver possession thereof to the competent authority within sixty days of the service of the notice, failing which the competent authority shall take the assistance of the police or the Collector. Section 3G provides for determination of amount payable as compensation. It provides that where any land is acquired under this Act, there shall be paid an amount which shall be determined by an order of the competent authority. Before proceeding to determine the amount, the competent authority shall give a public notice inviting claims from all persons interested in the land to be acquired. If the parties do not accept the offer of the competent authority, then the amount shall be determined by the arbitrator to be appointed by the Central Government. Section 3H provides for deposit and payment of amount. It provides that the amount determined under Section 3G shall be deposited by the Government with the competent authority before taking possession of the land. If there is any dispute with regard to the apportionment of the amount, then the competent authority shall refer the dispute to the decision of the Principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction within the limits of whose jurisdiction the land is situated.

In our view, after analysing the provisions of Sections 3A to 3H, in the instant case, we have not been shown any notification which provides for acquisition of land admeasuring 26R of the petitioner bearing Survey No. 50/01. The award dated 01 April 2013 passed pursuant to the notification specifically refers to land bearing Survey No. 50/04, which does not pertain to the petitioner. The powers exercised by the respondents of measurement under Section 3B clearly demonstrated that the land which was affected is the land belonging to the petitioner.

The question of the petitioner raising any objection to the notification does not arise because it is not the contention of the petitioner that land is not to be acquired for the purposes specified in Section 3A, but it is the contention of the petitioner that she should be paid adequate compensation by passing an appropriate award in her favour by the respondent authorities. In the absence of any award being passed in her favour, the question of acquisition does not arise. It is this contention which the petitioner is canvassing before this Court and, therefore, the submission made by the respondent authorities of the petitioner not raising any objection to the notification does not arise in the facts of the present case.

At the outset, we have not been shown any award passed by the respondent acquiring body in favour of the petitioner with regard to land admeasuring 26R in Survey No.50/01. The possession of the said land continues to remain with the petitioner till date. In the absence of any award being passed by the acquiring body acquiring the said land from the petitioner, the acquiring body would not be justified in seeking possession of the said land from the petitioner. The award dated 1 April 2013 is not in the name of the petitioner, but it relates to land bearing Survey No.50/04 admeasuring 26R, in favour of Shri. Pandurang More. Therefore, this award cannot be said to have been passed with respect to land belonging to the petitioner admeasuring 26R in Survey No.50/01. Pursuant to joint measurement, the acquiring body has admitted that the land belonging to the petitioner admeasuring 28R has been affected. However, while issuing notice dated 23 August 2018 for acquisition of petitioner’s land, it was only for land admeasuring 2R for compensation of Rs.5,03,764/-. Therefore, there is no award for acquiring land of the petitioner admeasuring 26R in Survey No.50/01.

Furthermore, respondent – acquiring body has offered Rs. 7 lakhs and odd for acquiring land admeasuring 26R belonging to the petitioner. In our view, this offer itself shows admission on the part of the acquiring body that land admeasuring 26R belonging to the petitioner has not been acquired pursuant to the award. If in 2018, land admeasuring 2R was acquired by paying compensation of Rs.5,03,764/-, then the offer made today for acquiring 26R for a paltry sum of Rs.7 lakhs and odd is unfair and unreasonable.

The petitioner has no objection to handing over the possession of the land admeasuring 26R in Survey No.50/01, but she is justified in contending that the same should be acquired by passing an award under the 1956 Act. The project for which the land is required is a National Highway project and, therefore, the stand taken by the petitioner appears to be fair subject to the acquiring body acquiring the same by passing the award under the said Act. The petitioner cannot be deprived of her right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India without due process of law.

On a reading of paragraphs no. 3 to 5 of affidavit-in-reply dated 25 June 2026 of respondent no.4-authority, through Mr. Swapnil Kasar, have admitted claim of the petitioner. However, the contention that she can file arbitration claim cannot be accepted because there is no award as of now for acquisition of 26R land.

The contention of the respondents that petitioner has not raised objection on notification issued for acquisition to oppose the petition is also unjustified. The petitioner had no objection for acquisition even today but it has to be by passing award in her favour for 26R land and therefore this submission of the respondents is rejected.

In affidavit-in-reply dated 28 July 2021 on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4 deponent Mr. Sanjay Kadam in paragraph 11 has admitted that they have initiated process of recovery from respondent no. 7 against acquisition of 26R from Gat No.50 and same will be recovered and paid to the petitioner. In our view, this statement accepts that amount due to the petitioner has been wrongly paid to some other person. The petitioner cannot be denied her right to compensation for parting with possession because of a mistake attributable to the authorities.

Respondent no. 7 in its affidavit has also stated that he is not concerned with petitioner’s land and compensation.

We draw support from following decisions :

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Development Authority vs. Megh Singh & Ors.^{22.(2016) 12 SCC 504} held that since no award was passed and land value was not given to the owner, acquiring authority was directed to complete the acquisition proceedings by passing an award under the said Act, 2013. In our view, the said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of the present case.

We, therefore, propose to pass the following order :-

We have not expressed any opinion on the proceedings pending before the Arbitrator between the acquiring body and respondent no.7.

Petition is disposed of. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and is disposed of.