Vasudev vs Executive Engineer, Highway Division, Public Work Department, Prayagraj And 2 Others

AFR
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 9264 of 2026
Vasudev
…..Petitioner(s)
Versus
Executive Engineer, Highway Division, Public Work Department,
Prayagraj and 2 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shailendra Kumar Singh, Vikas
Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal, C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Vikas Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ajeet
Singh Rana, learned Standing Counsel for the State, and Shri Ravindra Kumar
Singh, learned counsel holding brief of Shri R.K. Jaiswal, learned counsel for
the National Highways Authority of India ("NHAI").
2. The petition concerns compensation for an RCC construction standing on
Arazi No. 595, Village Mawai, Pargana Atharvan, Tehsil Manjhanpur, District
Kaushambi. The land was acquired for the four-lane National Highway
No.731A (Ram Van Gaman Marg) under the National Highways Act, 1956
("the Act, 1956" for brevity). The petitioner claims through his predecessor,
Mahesh Prasad, son of Shankar Dayal Pandey, whose name appears in the
notification under Section 3-D of the Act, 1956.
3. The petitioner challenges the supplementary award dated 14.08.2024 passed
by the Competent Authority (Special Land Acquisition Officer), Kaushambi,

2
WRIC No. - 9264 of 2026
to the extent it relates to him. He prays that the respondents be directed to
honour the earlier supplementary award dated 04.08.2023 and release the
balance compensation, with interest.
Facts of the Case:-
4. A notification under Section 3-A of the Act, 1956 was issued on
20.07.2022, followed by a notification under Section 3-D on 17.11.2022. By
award dated 31.12.2022, the Competent Authority determined compensation
for the acquired agricultural land measuring 1.3598 hectares. After the
Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Kaushambi, and the Tehsildar,
Kaushambi, verified the valuation of the structures, a supplementary award
dated 04.08.2023 was passed under Section 3-G(1) of the Act, 1956. It
determined compensation of Rs.68,00,650.78 for the petitioner's
constructions/assets (Serial No. 41 of the relevant table).
5. By letter dated 11.03.2024, the petitioner was asked to furnish certain
documents for release of this compensation. Instead of releasing it, the
respondents carried out a fresh verification. On that basis, a second
supplementary award dated 14.08.2024 was passed, determining
compensation of Rs.17,79,056/- for the same constructions/assets (Serial No.
42 of the relevant table).
6. Pursuant to the second supplementary award, Rs. 29,18,284/- was credited
to the petitioner's bank account. Nothing has been paid under the
supplementary award dated 04.08.2023. The petitioner states that Form No.
16A issued by the Income Tax Department shows both Rs. 68,00,650/- and
Rs.32,42,538/- against the two supplementary awards.
7. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.07.2025 seeking an
inquiry and payment in terms of the supplementary award dated 04.08.2023.
No decision has been taken on it.
Submissions:-
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once compensation was
determined by the supplementary award dated 04.08.2023 under Section 3-

3
WRIC No. - 9264 of 2026
G(1), the Competent Authority became functus officio. It had no jurisdiction
to review, revise or alter that award by a later supplementary award.
9. The Act, 1956 confers no power of review on the Competent Authority. The
statute provides its own remedy for a dispute on the amount determined by the
Arbitrator under Section 3-G(5), read with Sections 3-G(6) and 3-G(7). If the
respondents considered the earlier valuation wrong, they had to approach the
Arbitrator.
10. He relies on the Division Bench judgment dated 19.09.2019 in Writ-C No.
42225 of 2014 (Ravindra Kumar Singh v. Union of India and 2 Others); on
paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Karnataka High Court judgment reported in 2025
KHC 48715 (Writ Petition No. 11168 of 2025, decided on 24.11.2025); and on
the Full Bench decision of this Court in Shivraji and Others v. Deputy Director
of Consolidation, Allahabad and Others (1997 RD 562), for the proposition
that an authority cannot review its decision unless the statute confers that
power.
11. The supplementary award dated 14.08.2024 is therefore without
jurisdiction. The petitioner prays that it be set aside and that the balance
compensation under the award dated 04.08.2023, after adjusting the amount
already paid, be released with interest.
12. Learned Standing Counsel for the State and learned counsel for the NHAI
could not dispute the fact that the Special Land Acquisition Officer reviewed
the earlier award dated 04.08.2023 by the subsequent award dated 14.08.2024.
They could not point to any provision of the Act, 1956 which authorises such
a review.
Point for determination:-
13. The only question is whether the Competent Authority, having
determined compensation for the petitioner's structures by the supplementary
award dated 04.08.2023 under Section 3-G(1) of the Act, 1956, could replace
that determination with a different amount by a second supplementary award
dated 14.08.2024, when the Act, 1956 confers no power of review.

4
WRIC No. - 9264 of 2026
Discussion:-
14. The Competent Authority is a statutory authority. It has only the powers
that the Act, 1956 gives it, expressly or by necessary implication. The Act,
1956 is a self-contained code on acquisition for national highways, and its
provisions on compensation must be read as a whole.
15. The scheme for compensation is clear. Under Section 3-G(1), the amount
payable for acquired land is determined by an order of the Competent
Authority. Under Section 3-G(5), if either party is not satisfied with that
amount, it is determined by an Arbitrator appointed by the Central
Government, on the application of either party. Sections 3-G(6) and 3-G(7)
apply the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 to that proceeding and list the
factors the Arbitrator must consider.
16. Thus the Legislature has itself provided how an award of the Competent
Authority is to be tested. A party unhappy with the quantum has one remedy to
go before the Arbitrator. Nothing in Section 3-G, or elsewhere in the Act,
1956, allows the Competent Authority to reopen its own award, re-verify the
valuation and substitute a new figure. Had the Legislature wished to give that
power, it would have said so. Providing a statutory forum for correcting the
quantum points the other way.
17. It is a settled principle that where a statute requires a thing to be done in a
particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all (Nazir Ahmad v.
King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253). The Act, 1956 requires a dissatisfied party
to approach the Arbitrator. The respondents did not do so. They chose to revise
the award themselves, which the statute does not permit.
18. The power of review is not an inherent or incidental power. It exists only if
the statute confers it. This is the settled position in law: In Patel Narshi
Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji {(1971) 3 SCC 844)}, the
Supreme Court held that the power of review is not an inherent power and
must be conferred by law, either specifically or by necessary implication.

5
WRIC No. - 9264 of 2026
19. In Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania {(2010) 9
SCC 437)}, the Supreme Court held that an authority that has no power of
review under the statute cannot review its earlier order, and that an order
passed in exercise of a power not conferred by law cannot stand.
20. A Full Bench of this Court took the same view in Shivraji and Others v.
Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and Others (1997 RD 562), on
which the petitioner relies: where the statute does not confer the power of
review, the authority cannot exercise it.
21. The petitioner has also relied on the Division Bench judgment in Ravindra
Kumar Singh (Writ-C No. 42225 of 2014, decided on 19.09.2019) and on
paragraphs 10 to 13 of the Karnataka High Court judgment reported in 2025
KHC 48715. Both support the view that an authority acting under an Act that
confers no power of review cannot revisit its own determination, and that the
proper course for a party aggrieved by the amount of compensation under the
Act, 1956 is the statutory arbitration. We find these decisions consistent with
the principles stated above and respectfully agree with them.
22. Once the Competent Authority passed the supplementary award dated
04.08.2023 determining compensation under Section 3-G(1), its jurisdiction
on that matter was exhausted and it became functus officio. The award was not
a tentative or provisional assessment. It followed verification by the Executive
Engineer, Public Works Department, and the Tehsildar, and the respondents
themselves acted on it by asking the petitioner, on 11.03.2024, for documents
needed to release the amount.
23. We have also examined whether the second supplementary award could be
treated as a correction of a clerical or arithmetical slip. In our view, it cannot
be the position. The second award is based on a fresh verification of valuation
and reduces the compensation for the same structures from Rs.68,00,650.78 to
Rs.32,42,538/-, which is a change of substance. Re-assessing the value of the
structures is exactly the kind of dispute on quantum that the Act, 1956 sends to
the Arbitrator. The Competent Authority cannot sit in appeal over its own
award.

6
WRIC No. - 9264 of 2026
24. Administrative convenience, a later change of view, or a wish to correct an
earlier valuation does not give the authority a jurisdiction that the statute
withholds. An order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity, whatever the
reasons behind it.
25. The matter also concerns a constitutional right. Compensation for acquired
property is the price of the owner's deprivation under Article 300A of the
Constitution of India, which allows deprivation of property only by authority
of law. When compensation has been fixed by a competent authority in the
manner the statute prescribes, it cannot be reduced by a process the statute
does not recognise.
26. The respondents offered no defence on the legal question. Learned
Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the NHAI could not dispute that the
earlier award was reviewed, and neither pointed to any provision of the Act,
1956 empowering the Competent Authority to do so. The factual position is
therefore admitted, and the legal position is clear.
27. The conduct of the respondents compounds the matter. The amount
determined under the supplementary award dated 04.08.2023 has not been
paid, even though the petitioner was asked to furnish documents for its
release. The petitioner's representation dated 14.07.2025 has remained
undecided. The petitioner has been left without the compensation fixed in his
favour, and the only explanation is a second award that the Competent
Authority had no power to pass.
28. For these reasons, we hold that the supplementary award dated
14.08.2024, insofar as it relates to the petitioner, was passed without
jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. The supplementary award dated
04.08.2023 remains in force as the determination of compensation for the
petitioner's structures.
29. This judgment does not close the statutory remedy. If the NHAI or any
other party is dissatisfied with the quantum determined by the supplementary
award dated 04.08.2023, it may approach before the Arbitrator under Section
3-G(5) of the Act, 1956, in accordance with law. We express no opinion on the

7
WRIC No. - 9264 of 2026
merits of the valuation or on any question of limitation that may arise in such a
proceeding.
30. The writ petition is allowed. It is ordered as follows:
(i) The supplementary award dated 14.08.2024, insofar as it relates to the
petitioner (Serial No. 42 of the relevant table), is quashed.
(ii) The respondents shall release to the petitioner the compensation
determined by the supplementary award dated 04.08.2023 (Rs.68,00,650.78),
after adjusting the sum of Rs.29,18,284/- already paid, within a period of one
month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the
Competent Authority.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
November 06, 2026
NLY
Digitally signed by :-
NAND LAL YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad