Bombay High Court: In a petition seeking compensation for the entire acquired land for a road widening project, including the area proposed to be used for the service road and open spaces, the Division Bench of Kishore C. Sant* and Sushil M. Ghodeswar, JJ., held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation for the land acquired for the service road in a National Highway widening project and directed the authorities to pay the compensation amount within 2 months, holding the denial of compensation to be arbitrary.
Also Read: Bom HC criticises State over systemic failure in land acquisition proceedings | SCC Times
Background
The present writ petition arose from the acquisition of the petitioner’s land for the widening of National Highway 211 (Dhule—Solapur Road) under the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (NH Act). Notifications under Sections 3-A, 3-D and 3-G, NH Act were issued and the competent authority passed an award determining compensation for the acquired land and the petitioner’s residential house.
The dispute arose when the petitioner approached the authorities for payment of compensation. According to the respondents, out of the acquired land, only a part was acquired for the service road. At the same time, the remaining area was merely required to be kept for the service road and, therefore, no compensation was payable for that portion. The respondents maintained that compensation was payable only for the land actually utilised for the widening of the National Highway and not for the remaining area reserved for the service road. The petitioner, however, claimed compensation for the entire extent of the acquired land and approached the High Court.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the High Court initially allowed the petition. Thereafter, the competent authority sought review on the ground that, before the disposal of the writ petition, a fresh award had been passed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which had not been brought to the Court’s notice. The earlier order was reviewed, and the writ petition was restored to its original file.
Subsequently, the petitioner amended the writ petition and sought compensation in terms of the fresh award together with interest, while continuing to claim compensation for the entire acquired land. The respondents reiterated their stand that compensation was payable only for the land actually used for the National Highway and not for the area proposed to be used for the service road and open spaces.
Issue
Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation for the land which is acquired for the service road for public use?
Analysis, Findings and Decision
At the outset, the Court held that the issue was no longer res integra and referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pt. Chet Ram Vashist v. MCD. Wherein, the Supreme Court considered the effect of reservation of land for public purposes and the entitlement of the authority to claim transfer of such land.
The Court noted that, relying upon Pt. Chet Ram Vashist, this Court in Vrajlal Jinabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra had allowed the petition and directed payment of compensation even for land acquired for public utility services such as internal roads and open spaces. The Court also noted that a similar view had been taken in State of Maharashtra v. Bhimashankar Sidramappa Chippa.
The Court observed that the Supreme Court in Shirdi Nagar Panchayat v. Kishor Sharad Borawake, after considering Pt. Chet Ram Vashist, reiterated the principle that a landowner is entitled to compensation even for amenity spaces and open spaces. The Court also referred to its own subsequent decision, wherein, after considering the provisions of the NH Act, the Town Planning Act and the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, compensation was directed to be paid even for land required to be kept as open space for public utility purposes.
Also Read: SC rejects NHAI Review of Tarsem Singh Ruling | SCC Times
Considering the above, the Court held that the petitioners were entitled to compensation even for the area of the service road and that the action of the respondents in not granting such compensation was arbitrary.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition and directed Respondent 5, i.e. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Medium Project 2, Osmanabad, to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners within 2 months.
The Court further directed that, if the amount was not paid within the stipulated period, Respondent 5 would be liable to pay costs of ₹50,000 for the delayed payment and the amount would be paid with consequential benefits.
[Youvraj v. NHAI, WP No. 1986 of 2016, decided on 12-6-2026]
*Judgment authored by Justice Kishore C. Sant.
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Shelke Manoj Uttamrao, Advocate
For the respondents: Deshpande Sanjeev B, Rajendra D Sanap for R-2, AGP for R-6, M. V. Kini & Co., Dhongade Anilkumar B., Gaikwad Dnyaneshwar B. For R 1-5
