While granting relief to a landowner in an acquisition case, the Bombay High Court has held that the landowner is entitled to get the compensation even for the area of the service road.

The High Court was considering a Petition whereby the petitioner prayed for direction to the Respondent-acquiring body and the authorities to pay the petitioner an amount of compensation as determined by the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Medium Project No.2, Osmanabad (fifth Respondent).

The Division Bench of Justice Kishore C. Sant and Justice Sushil M. Ghodeswar held, “Considering above, this Court finds that the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation even for the area of service road etc. The action of respondent in not granting the compensation is arbitrary.”

Advocate Manoj U. Shelke represented the Petitioner, while Advocate R. D. Sanap represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The land of the petitioner to the extent of 26R came to be acquired by the respondents-authorities for widening of the National Highway No.211 i.e. Dhule-Solapur Road. For that purpose, a notification was issued under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956. Thereafter, a notification came to be issued under Section 3(D) and 3(G). In 2014, the fifth Respondent passed a final award and determined the compensation of Rs 54,47,000 towards the land and Rs.9,62,201 towards the residential house. Thus, the total amount was determined to be Rs.64,09,201. The petitioner approached the office of the Project Director, Central Government Office, for the amount of compensation, but such a request was rejected.

It was the stand of the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Medium Project, that out of the land, 2168 sq. mtr was acquired for the service road, and the remaining land was not acquired but was only required to be kept for the service road, and thus no compensation was payable to the extent of 2168 sq mtr. The compensation was to be paid only for the area of 432 sq. mtr. and not for the remaining land. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The Court initially allowed the writ petition by considering the judgment in the case of Pt. Chet Ram Vashist (dead) by LRS. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1995). However, subsequently, the review application came to be filed by the Competent Authority stating that, prior to disposal of the writ petition, a fresh award was passed on June 14, 2018, in view of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. However, the same could not be brought to the notice of the Court. In view of subsequent development, the petition came to be amended. The petitioner thus sought payment of compensation as per the subsequent award with interest.

Reasoning

The Bench referred to the judgment in Vrajlal Jinabhai Patel Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.(2003), wherein a direction was passed to pay the compensation even for the land acquired for public utility services like internal roads, open spaces, etc. The Bench also noted how the Apex Court in Shirdi Nagar Panchayat Vs. Kishor Sharad Borawake and Ors. (2023) by considering the case of Pt. Chet Ram Vashist Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (1995) again reiterated the principle that the land owner is entitled to get compensation even for the amenity space, open space, etc.

The Bench thus held that the petitioners were entitled to get the compensation even for the area of the service road, etc. Thus, allowing the petition, the Bench asked the Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Medium Project to pay the amount to the petitioners within two months. “If the amount is not paid within stipulated time, there shall be costs of Rs.50,000/- on respondent No.5 for delayed payment”, it ordered.

Cause Title: Youvraj v. The National Highways Authority of India (Neutral Citation:2026:BHC-AUG:22966-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate Manoj U. Shelke

Respondent: Advocate R. D. Sanap, Advocate D. S. Manorkar, Addl. Government Pleader Kalapalata Patil Bharaswadkar

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice Kishore C. SantJustice Sushil M. Ghodeswar

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.