Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2.3. The respondents state that compensation was calculated under Sections 26 to 30 of the RFCTLARR Act, including solatium, additional market value, and multiplication factor. They contend that only compensation provisions and limited rehabilitation benefits apply to NH Act acquisitions, not the entire RFCTLARR Act.

2.4. The respondents deny that notifications were defective or that objections were ignored. They state that additional notifications were issued only to include missing extents and that Section 3G continues to apply.

5. Heard Mr. Ch. Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for NHAI, learned Standing Counsel for CALA,and Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned Additional Solicitor General of India. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the acquisition proceedings were earlier challenged in WP No.5187 of 2023 on the ground that environmental clearance was not obtained prior to issuance of the declaration under Section 3D of the NH Act, 1956, and though interim orders were initially granted, the writ petition was later dismissed and Writ Appeal No.1190 of 2023 is pending without interim relief; that some adjoining landowners have separately challenged the Section 3A and 3D notifications in WP No.10431 of 2024 and obtained interim protection, leading the petitioners to reasonably believe that the authorities would not interfere with their possession until final adjudication; that the petitioners received copies of the Award proceedings only in February 2025; that multiple notifications under Sections 3A and 3D were issued without specifying survey numbers, landowner-wise extents, plans, or maps, and the order under Section 3C dated 20.11.2021 was not communicated to the wp_28668_2025 NBK, J petitioners; that the petitioners came to know about the multiple notifications only through the NHAI website and were unaware of the environmental clearance for nearly a year until public notices appeared in newspapers; that Section 3G of the NH Act, 1956, relating to determination of compensation, is no longer operative in view of the RFCTLARR (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 2015 issued under Section 105(3) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, and therefore the provisions of the 2013 Act apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act; that consequently, compensation and rehabilitation benefits ought to have been determined in accordance with Sections 16 to 18, 21 to 30, 23 and 31 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 and not under Section 3G of the National Highways Act; that the competent authority failed to revise or update the market value of the acquired land as required under Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act prior to issuance of the Section 3A notification; that two different rates were adopted while passing the award in January 2024; that the expressions "amount" and "compensation" used in Sections 3G and 3H of the National Highways Act include compensation for land, structures, and rehabilitation entitlements to affected families; that though the petitioners may not be displaced, they remain an affected family entitled to rehabilitation benefits; that possession of the land cannot be taken unless complete compensation including valuation of trees and structures and determination of rehabilitation entitlements is finalized; that the award proceedings are unsustainable as compensation for structures and trees has not been determined and therefore the notice under Section 3E of the National Highways Act is also liable to be set aside; that the competent authority ought to have issued notice under Section 21 of the RFCTLARR Act and conducted award enquiry under Section 23 after following the procedure under Sections 16 to 18 for identification of eligible persons and wp_28668_2025 NBK, J preparation of a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme instead of proceeding under Section 3G of the National Highways Act; that despite representations expressing unwillingness to part with the land and pointing out the illegality in the acquisition and compensation determination, the authorities in June-July 2025 attempted to mark the petitioner's land with police assistance and threatened the petitioner not to cultivate the land despite the existence of standing crops, thereby compelling the petitioner to approach this Court.

under Section 3(c) of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 or to claim benefits under the Second and Third Schedules of the said Act; that only a portion of the petitioners' land has been acquired and the remaining land continues to be available for their livelihood, thereby negating any claim of deprivation of livelihood; that where substantial monetary compensation has been awarded, the landowners can utilize such compensation for acquiring alternative land or assets and therefore cannot insist on rehabilitation or resettlement benefits; that even otherwise, the petitioners failed to raise wp_28668_2025 NBK, J specific objections before the competent authority demonstrating that the compensation awarded was insufficient to enable rehabilitation or resettlement; that any claim for rehabilitation or resettlement requires cogent evidence demonstrating that the compensation determined is grossly inadequate to secure such rehabilitation; that entitlement to benefits under the Second Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act arises only when the competent authority certifies that the family has been displaced or dislocated, which is not the case here; that preparation of a Social Impact Assessment (SIA) report is not mandatory for acquisitions under the National Highways Act, 1956; that the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, particularly those relating to Social Impact Assessment and rehabilitation and resettlement under Chapter II, do not automatically apply to acquisitions under the National Highways Act unless specifically extended by notification under Section 105 of the Act of 2013, and no such notification applies in the present case; that since only part of the petitioners' land has been acquired and they have not been dislocated, there is no requirement to frame a rehabilitation and resettlement scheme; that injunction against an infrastructure project is barred under Section 20-A of the Specific Relief Act, 1963; that the present project is a public infrastructure project of national importance and cannot be stalled, and therefore the acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged merely on the ground of dissatisfaction with the compensation, particularly when an effective statutory remedy for enhancement of compensation is available under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act.

9. Learned Standing Counsel for the Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) contends that environmental clearance for the project was obtained on 05.07.2023 vide File No.10/29/2021-IA-III and the wp_28668_2025 NBK, J additional notification under Section 3A of the NH Act, 1956 was issued only for the purpose of covering certain missing structures; that the competent authority passed awards dated 05.01.2024 and 31.01.2024 determining compensation for the acquired lands and subsequently passed a supplementary award dated 11.11.2025 determining compensation for structures; that several landowners who were aggrieved by the compensation approached the Arbitrator-cum-District Collector under Section 3G(5) of the NHActand the arbitrator revised the market value and enhanced compensation through awards dated 09.05.2025, 23.07.2025, 04.08.2025 and 23.10.2025; that the provisions of Sections 16 to 18, 21 and 23 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 are not applicable to acquisitions under the National Highways Act as the project is a linear infrastructure project where the affected area is confined to the right of way and therefore identification of eligibility for rehabilitation benefits and preparation of a Rehabilitation and Resettlement Scheme is not mandatory; that benefits under the Second Schedule of the RFCTLARR Act can be claimed only when the competent authority certifies that the petitioner's family has been displaced or dislocated from the area; that objections filed under Section 3C of the National Highways Act were duly received and disposed of and additional notifications were issued only to acquire certain missing extents of land, following which notification under Section 3D was issued and the land vested with the Central Government free from all encumbrances; that out of 1035 landowners whose lands were acquired or are in the process of acquisition, 859 landowners have already received compensation and only the petitioner and a few others have not accepted the amount; that the petitioner has raised untenable objections and approached this Court with the intention of stalling the land acquisition process; that Section 3G of the NHAct continues to govern determination of compensation for lands wp_28668_2025 NBK, J acquired under the Act, while only the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 relating to determination of compensation under the First Schedule and Rehabilitation and Resettlement benefits under the Second Schedule are applicable to such acquisitions, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.