Sonal vs Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways & Ors.

(PER : RAJNISH R. VYAS, J.)

Heard. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of parties. Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.Anil Mardikar assisted by Mr.D.P.Singh Advocate for the petitioners, Mr.C.J.Dhumane Advocate for respondent No.1, Mr.A.A.Kathane, Advocate for respondent No.2 and Mr.P.P.Pendke, learned AGP for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

The challenge is to the communication dated 03/10/2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, Balapur (respondent No.4) by which the petitioners were informed that it cannot exercise power to grant compensation for acquiring the land as the final Award had already been passed. Further prayer is for direction to determine the compensation as per the Gazette notification dated 06/12/2021.

The property which is the subject matter of the present petition is a portion admeasuring 0.24HR out of Survey No.17/1 situated in Mouza Babhulkhed, Taluka Balapur, District Akola. It is the case of the petitioners that without even issuing the notices for acquisition of land, possession of the land was taken for constructing National Highway No.6 in the stretch from Km.253.5000 to Km.279.250 of the Amravati–Maharashtra–Gujrat Border Section. The petitioners had purchased the aforesaid land vide sale deed executed in the year 2002 for land admeasuring 1.76 HR.

In the year 2011, the respondents proposed to widen the National Highway No.6, which was passing through the field of the petitioners. As the acquisition was governed by the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’), a notification under Section 3A of the Act of 1956 declaring the intention to acquire the land was published on 25/11/2011. The substance of the notification was also published in various news papers calling for objections from the interested persons.

According to the petitioners, the land bearing Survey No.17/1 was wrongly not included in the said notification and therefore, the petitioners did not receive any notice and consequently could not raise any objection. Thereafter, a notification under Section 3D of the Act, of 1956 was published in the Gazette on 30/10/2012 and the covered property consequently vested in the Central Government. Even the Gazette notification nowhere mentioned Survey No.17/1 in the list of land to be acquired. On 30/03/2013, the Award was passed under Section 3G of the Act of 1956. The Award shows that Survey No.17 is mentioned, but not Survey No.17/1 belonging to the petitioners’. It is the case of the petitioners that though their land was shown to be acquired on paper, the petitioners were never granted any compensation.

Consequently, a representation was submitted by the petitioners to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Balapur (respondent No.4) on 10/10/2013 and it was stated that the petitioners had not received any compensation even though their land was acquired. It was then pleaded by the petitioners that the respondent No.4 noticing the aforesaid position informed the petitioners that their case would be considered and the agricultural field would be acquired, but in spite of waiting for years, no steps were taken by the respondents.

The petitioners then on 06/03/2018 submitted a representation stating that they are the owners of Survey No.17/1 and that the National Highway No.6 was constructed through their agricultural field, and that though in the widening process it can be noticed on the spot that 0.24HR from the North Side and South Side is acquired, but still notices were not issued to the petitioners. It was then requested that the spot inspection be conducted and notices be issued to the petitioners and if the respondents come to the conclusion that the land is not going to be acquired, then same be communicated to the petitioners.

The petitioners then obtained the copy of the measurement map prepared by the respondents before the acquisition of the land which was carried out between the period of 21/04/2012 to 30/04/2012 and came to know that Survey No.17/1 was shown on the South Side i.e. back side of Survey No.17 and Survey No.17/2 was shown as including the Survey No.17/1 of the petitioners.

Noticing the mistake committed by the respondent authorities while preparing the map and showing the position of the land of the petitioners on the southern side of Survey Nos.17/3 and 17/2, an application was made to the Nazul Department with a request to carry out a fresh measurement. Accordingly, a fresh measurement was conducted on 14/02/2020 and map was also prepared, which reflected that respondents before acquiring the land in the year 2012, had incorrectly shown the land of the petitioners on the back side of Survey No.17/2 and thus denied the compensation.

Learned Senior Counsel then contended that an application was made to respondent No.4 on 17/06/2021 for correcting the aforesaid mistake and for grant of compensation. The respondent No.4 then on 02/07/2021 issued a communication to the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records (DSLRs), Balapur and requested to clarify as to which of the two measurements/maps could be relied upon. It was further asked to cancel the measurement which was wrongly done and forward the final corrected joint measurement report. It was also requested to provide the information as to which person’s land was acquired as per the joint measurement report.

On 13/07/2021, the General Manager (Tech) & Project Director attached to the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) informed the petitioners that the letter of the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, Balapur addressed to the DSLRs, Balapur for verification of measurement in respect of the petitioners’ Survey No.17/1 was enclosed. The letter dated 23/09/2021 was issued by the General Manager (Tech) & Project Director, NHAI to the SDO and Competent Authority for Land Acquisition, in which it was stated that in the project in question bulk land was acquired through the SDO and it was observed that during the bulk land acquisition some part of the land acquired for the four laning of National Highway No.6 in Survey No.17 had been left out. It was also stated that as per measurement report dated 18/02/2020, submitted by the DSLRs, it was mentioned that 0.24 HR of land from Survey No.17 is abutting the work of the National Highway and needs to be acquired and therefore, a request was made to provide a draft notification under Section 3A of the Act of 1956 for Survey No.17.

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner then submitted that the joint measurement report dated 18/02/2020 carried out by the authorities would make it clear that Survey No.17/1 was being used for widening the National Highway, but the said land was not included in the Award due to incorrect measurement. Then he further contended that in the light of the communication dated 23/09/2021, the respondents issued a Notification under Sub Section (1) of Section 3A of the Act of 1956 for acquiring the land admeasuring 0.24HR having Survey No.17 and the Gazette notification under Section 3A of the Act of 1956 was issued on 06/12/2021.

The learned Senior Counsel further argued that in the said Notification, again the Survey No.17/1 was not shown, but only Survey No.17 was shown and contended that in fact there was no Survey No.17 in Mouza Babhulkhed. He then submitted that when the statements of the petitioners were recorded by the SDO on 23/02/2022 they had categorically stated that they had purchased the land bearing Survey No.17/1 in the year 2002 and also produced the sale deed to that effect. During the measurement of the land, at the time of acquisition, the land of petitioners was shown as Survey No.17/2, which is owned by one Sayyed Nateoddin and the land of the petitioners was shown on the southern side and hence same was left out of acquisition.

On 18/07/2022, the respondent No.4 issued a communication to the Collector (Acquisition), Akola and sought guidance as to whether in view of the subsequent joint measurement report the notification under Section 3D be issued or some other steps be taken. It was stated in the aforesaid communication that the corrected joint measurement report has been submitted to the Office of the SDO in which it is mentioned that the joint measurement map had shown the name of Sayyed against Survey No.17/2 instead of mentioning the names of the petitioners against Survey No.17/1.

The respondent No.4 then on 03/10/2022 informed the petitioners that as in land acquisition proceedings No.LAC/LLQ/47/1-Babhulkhed-11/2011-12 final Award dated 30/03/2013 under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 had been passed, the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition could not alter the said Award. The petitioners were asked to approach the Court of law.

In this background, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the act of the respondent authorities in utilizing the land of the petitioners without paying the compensation was not only contrary to the mandate of Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, but also to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, as well as this Court. He submitted that the petitioners were not at fault when the initial joint measurement report was prepared, which was totally incorrect. According to him, the subsequent joint measurement report clearly shows that in fact the National Highway was constructed on the land bearing in Survey No.17/1. He then relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.910/2026 passed on 24/09/2026 in the case of Shekhar Ghanshyam Janbandhu vs. The State of Maharashtra and others.

In pursuance of the notice issued, respondent Nos.3 Collector and respondent No. 4 SDO filed their affidavit-in-reply on 15/10/2024 and contended that after following the procedure prescribed under the Act of 1956, the acquisition proceeding was done in the year 2011 and final Award was passed in the year 2013. It was further contended that the respondents had conducted the joint measurement of the land to be acquired, and on perusal of the same, it becomes clear that land bearing Survey No.17/1 was never acquired; however, the map submitted by the petitioners shows that land was acquired, which map was prepared in the year 2020 and an argument was made that if the petitioners feel aggrieved, they can approach the Arbitrator for modification of the Award to that extent.

It was also stated that since, as per the joint measurement report the land of the petitioners was not acquired, therefore, Award passed under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 did not include the name of the petitioners. It was reiterated that as per initial joint measurement report, the petitioners’ land was never acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer and the map dated 14/02/2020 is not relevant to the acquisition procedure, since the acquisition was already over.

The respondent No.2 NHAI has also filed its reply on 22/12/2025, contending that its only duty is to deposit the necessary compensation in the account of the Competent Authority under Section 3H the Act of 1956 and it was for the Competent Authority to acquire the land. It was contended that the original joint measurement map on the basis of which the original acquisition was undertaken and the Award was passed, is still in force and in the absence of any challenge to it cannot be ignored.

According to the respondent No.2 NHAI, the entire acquisition process was done by the respondent No.4 which vide Award dated 30/03/2013, acquired the land Survey No.17 to the extent of 0.86HR, and further, as per Section 3A Notification dated 06/12/2021, the land proposed to be acquired was of Survey No.17, which makes it evident that the Competent Authority has till date not published any Gazette notification for Survey No.17/1. An affidavit dated 14/07/2026 was filed by the respondent No.4 in which it was stated that the subsequent joint measurement report makes it evident that the area of the petitioners admeasuring about 0.24HR has been acquired by the NHAI, which shows that though the land of the petitioners was acquired the NHAI did not pay the compensation to the petitioners. It was then stated in the affidavit that respondent No.4 is ready to initiate new acquisition proceedings for the said acquired land of the petitioners as soon as the proposal is received from the Project Director NHAI for the new acquisition. The filing of the affidavit continued with each respondent and in order to resisting the claim of the petitioners without taking any responsibility. Accordingly, one more additional affidavit on behalf of respondent No.2 was filed, in which it was stated that upon further scrutiny of the record it was noticed that an inadvertent error had occurred in recording/reflecting the correct names of the land owners in the joint measurement report prepared by the Taluka Inspector of Land Records (TILRs), Patur, and that the said discrepancy appears to have been carried forward in the consequential Award passed under Section 3G of the Act of 1956 by the Competent Authority i.e. respondent No.4.

The respondent No.4 reiterated the stand that from Survey No.17, respondent No.2 has neither sought nor required any land beyond 0.86HR. The blame was shifted by respondent No.2 by stating that the discrepancy arose solely on account of erroneous joint measurement report prepared by the land records department and the consequential Award was passed by the Competent Authority.

The respondent No.5 i.e. DSLRs also filed its detailed affidavit on 22/09/2026 and contended that its office undertook a spot inspection and measurement on 23/02/2022 and the verification revealed the position on the spot. It was further stated that if the Court directs, the respondent No.5 has no objection to measurement/ demarcation of the land for further factual verification. It was stated that for the alleged error occurring in the acquisition proceedings conducted by the authorities several years earlier, the respondent No.5 cannot be held responsible. Thus, the tussle between the petitioners and the respondents, by way of several affidavits shifted amongst respondent Nos.1 and 2 on the one hand and respondent Nos.3 to 5 on the other.

In the aforesaid background after hearing the respective parties, on the various dates and having gone through the record of the case, the following facts emerged :-

The map which is outcome of the joint measurement conducted on 14/02/2020 shows that the earlier map/measurement conducted on the basis of which the Award was passed, did not reveal the correct position of the land. The claim of the petitioners was denied on the ground that the respondent No.4 – SDO has no power to modify the Award.

It is in this background that if the contentions are considered, it would be crystal clear that in fact the petitioners’ land i.e. Survey No.17/1 was utilized for construction/widening of the National Highway. The land of the petitioners admeasured 0.24HR. The stand taken by the respondents by way of various affidavits shows that the NHAI is shifting the blame on respondent Nos.3 and 4 by saying that it has very limited role and only duty to deposit the necessary compensation in account of the Competent Authority. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 i.e. acquiring body have stated that the compensation has already been paid. The stand was also taken that it was the office of the DSLRs which had committed the mistake. The respondent No.5 has then stated that for the error that occurred in the acquisition proceedings, which were initiated several years before, it cannot be held responsible. The documents on record also reveals that the respondent No.4 has categorically stated that it is ready to initiate new acquisition proceedings for the acquired land of the petitioners, as soon as the proposal from the Project Director of NHAI is received by it. Thus, the question would be whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation for the land which was acquired by the respondent Nos.1 and 2, though an incorrect survey number was reflected in the first joint measurement sheet.

The learned Senior Counsel has rightly invited our attention to the judgment and order dated 24/09/2026 in Writ Petition No.910/2026, more particularly on para 30 and 31 which read as under :-

Thus, it is now well settled that whenever land is used and possessed for the public purpose, then the petitioners are entitled for the compensation. Various affidavits show that utilization of the land of the petitioners is not at all in a dispute. The question now remains is of grant of compensation as though Survey No.17/1 was acquired, the same was shown on the southern side. Just because the respondents themselves are shifting the blame on each other, would not falsify the fact that the petitioners’ land was possessed and used for construction/ widening of the National Highway and acquired. The dispute amongst the Government Departments or acquiring body inter se would not be enough to defeat the constitutional right guaranteed to the citizens.

Article 300-A of the Constitution of India categorically states that no person shall be deprived of his property except by “authority of law”. The dispute between the respondents regarding payment of compensation, advancing an argument that when the Award was passed there was no subsequent joint measurement sheet showing the error occurred in earlier measurement, cannot be termed as “by authority of law”. When person’s land is subjected to the acquisition or utilized for a public purpose, what follows is the performance of duty by the authorities to pay the compensation and not advancement of excuses. In the light of the discussion made above, the impugned order dated 03/10/2022 will also not come in the way of the petitioners getting the compensation. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to pass the following order :-

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.