Youvraj Namdeo Khaladkar And Anothers vs The National Highway Authority Of India Ministry Of Road Transport And Highway Its Secretary And Or

2026:BHC-AUG:22966-DB
( 1 ) WP-1986-2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1986 OF 2016
1. Youvraj S/o. Namdeo Khaladkar ]
Age: 45 years, Occu: Agri. ]
2. Limbraj s/o. Namdeo Khaladkar (died), ]
Through his legal heirs, ]
2-A Nirmala w/o. Limbraj Khaladkar, ]
Age: 40 years, Occu: Household ]
2-B Rakesh S/o. Limbraj Khaladkar, ]
Age: 28 years, Occu: Agri. ]
2-C Yogesh s/o. Limbraj Khaladkar, ]
Age: 25 years, Occu: Education. ]
All R/o. Shekhapur, ]
Tal. And Dist. Osmanabad. ]...PETITIONERS
V E R S U S
1. The National Highway’s Authority of India ]
Ministry of Road Transport and Highway’s ]
Through its Secretary,Department of Road ]
Transport and Highway’s, G-5 & 6, Sector-10, ]
Dwarka, New Delhi-110 075. ]
2. The Project Director, ]
Regional Office, Maharashtra, ]
th
602, 6 Floor, Kohinoor City Mall, ]
Kirol Road, Off. Lal Bahadur Shashtri Marg, ]
Kurla (West), Mumbai-400 070. ]

( 2 ) WP-1986-2016
3. The Project Director, ]
Central Government Office, ]
National Highway’s Authority of India, ]
B-23, Near Kamgar Chowk, ]
N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad – 431 003. ]
4. The Project Director, ]
Central Government Office, ]
Manor National Highway’s Authority of India, ]
Plot No.80, Old Santosh Nagar, ]
In front of Devika Gas Agency, ]
Jule Solapur-143 003. ]
5. The Deputy Collector, ]
Land Acquisition Medium Project No.2, ]
Osmanabad, Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad. ]
6. Town Planner, Osmanabad, ]
Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ]...RESPONDENTS
...
Mr. Manoj U. Shelke, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. R. D. Sanap, Advocate for Respondent No. 2.
Mr. D. S. Manorkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 4.
Smt. Kalapalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Addl. G.P. for Respondent No.5 & 6-
State.
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT &
SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 7 APRIL 2026.
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 JUNE 20256.
JUDGMENT :- [PER- KISHORE C. SANT, J.]

( 3 ) WP-1986-2016
1. Heard Mr. Shelke, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr.
Sanap, the learned Advocate for Respondent No.2, Mr. Manorkar, the
learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and Smt. Bharaswadkar,
learned Additional Government Pleader, for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
2. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for
direction to the Respondent-acquiring body and the authorities to pay
the petitioner an amount of compensation as determined by Respondent
No.5 i.e. Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition Medium Project No.2,
Osmanabad.
3. The respondent No.1 is the National Highway’s Authority of India
for whom the land is acquired for widening of road. Respondent No.2 is
the Project Director, Regional Office, Maharashtra. Respondent No.3 is
the Project Director, Central Government Office, National Highway’s
Authority of India. Respondent No.4 is the Project Director, National
Highway Authority of India. Respondent No.5 is the Deputy Collector,
Land Acquisition Medium Project No.2, Osmanabad. The respondent
No.6 is Town Planner, Osmanabad, who is subsequently added.

( 4 ) WP-1986-2016
4. The facts in short giving rise to the present writ petition are that
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, notification was
issued under Section 3(A) of the National Highways Act, 1956
(hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”). Thereafter, a notification came
to be issued under Section 3(D) and 3(G) of the said Act. On
03.11.2014, the Respondent No.5 passed final award and determined
the compensation of Rs.54,47,000/- towards the land and Rs.9,62,201/-
towards residential house. Thus, the total amount is determined to be
Rs.64,09,201/-. When the petitioner approached to the office of
Respondent No.3 for amount of compensation, the Respondent No.3-
authorities refused to pay the entire compensation. It is the stand of the
Respondent No.5 that out of the land, 2168 sq. mter is acquired for
service road. The remaining land is not acquired but is only required to
be kept for service road, and therefore, no compensation is payable to
the extent of 2168 sq.mtr. The compensation is to be paid only for the
area of 432 sq. mtr. and not for the remaining land. It is on this, the

( 5 ) WP-1986-2016
petitioner approached this Court.
5. This Court initially allowed the writ petition by order dated
04.09.2018 by considering the judgment in the case of Pt. Chet Ram
1
Vashist (dead) by LRS. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi . However,
subsequently, the review application came to be filed by the Competent
Authority stating that, prior to disposal of the writ petition by order
dated 04.09.2018, a fresh award was passed on 14.06.2018 in view of
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 this Court. It is on that, the earlier order
came to be reviewed and petition stood restored to its original position
by order dated 26.02.2021. In view of subsequent development, the
petition came to be amended. It is now prayed that the petitioner be
paid the compensation as per subsequent award dated 14.06.2018 with
interest since 2014 and prayed for 100% compensation. However, the
stand again is that, the petitioner would be entitled only to the extent of
land which is actually used for widening of the national highway and
1 (1995) 1 SCC 47

( 6 ) WP-1986-2016
not for the area which is to be used as service road under the garb that it
is for public purpose. The respondents have filed affidavit in reply. The
last affidavit in reply dated 20.03.2023 is filed by Respondent No.5
justifying the action of non-payment of compensation to the extent of
land used for open spaces and service road etc.
6. During the pendency of the writ petition, various directions were
issued to get the exact measurement of the land on record. However, it is
now that there is no dispute about the said and the petitioner
maintained that total land acquired is 26R. The Court, therefore,
proceed on the same.
7. Mr. Shelke, the learned Advocate for the petitioner invites
attention to the award passed under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, stating that the factor to be considered for payment of
compensation that is the double the amount of market value is to be
paid as fair compensation, plus 100% solatium is granted in clause
20(A). It was the stand of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that the entire

( 7 ) WP-1986-2016
amount of compensation is deposited on 29.12.2014 with Respondent
No.5. It is for the respondent No.5 to disburse the amount to the land
owner as early as possible under Section 3-A of the National Highways
Act. There is no stand of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 that the petitioners are
not entitled to get compensation for the land used for public use. It is
only Respondent No.5 who has taken the said stand. The petitioner thus
submits that when the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have deposited the
amount to respondent No.5, it is for respondent No.5 to disburse the
amount.
8. Smt. Bharaswadkar, the learned AGP vehemently argued that the
land to the extent of 2168 sq. mtr. is towards service road as per the
measurement by the Deputy Director, Land Record, Osmanabad. The
Town Planner, Osmanabad has specifically informed that no
compensation is payable towards the land to be used for public purpose,
and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to get the amount of
Rs.45,41,960/- by inviting attention to the communication by
respondent No.5 to the petitioner.

( 8 ) WP-1986-2016
9. There is one more affidavit filed by respondent No.6 i.e. Town
Planner, Osmanabad, taking the stand that the internal roads, service
roads and open spaces in the sanctioned lay out are for public purpose
and used for public and in view of Government notification dated
02.04.1974 and standardized building bye-laws and Development
Control Rules for A, B and C class Municipal Councils of Maharashtra, no
compensation is payable. He relied upon Rule 19.2 and 19.3 of the said
Rules which speak about area under Rule and open space. Learned AGP
thus submits that in no case the petitioners would be entitled to get the
compensation as stated above. She further invited attention to additional
affidavit on behalf of respondent No.5 filed in September 2021 to submit
that the petitioners are not entitled to get the compensation. In the said
affidavit, it is also prayed that some amount needs to be recovered from
the petitioner as decree under Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act.
10. The learned Advocates Mr. Sanap and Mr. Manorkar, adopted the
arguments of learned AGP. Mr. Manorkar invites attention to section 3-H

( 9 ) WP-1986-2016
and 3-J of the National Highways Act stating that the amount is already
deposited with the competent authority.
11. Considering all above submissions, this Court has to only consider
as to whether the petitioners are entitled to get the compensation for the
land which is acquired for service road for the public use. The question
is no more res-integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pt. Chet
Ram Vashist Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) has specifically
considered this question. The Court considered the provisions of Section
313 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 and Clause 5 in
paragraph 3(iv) of the Delhi (Control of Building Operations)
Ordinance, 1955. Paragraph No.6 of the said judgment read as under:
“6. Reserving any site for any street, open space, park, school etc. in a
layout plan is normally a public purpose as it is inherent in such
reservation that it shall be used by the public in general. The effect of
such reservation is that the owner ceases to be a legal owner of the land
in dispute and he holds the land for the benefit of the society or the
public in general. It may result in creating an obligation in nature of trust
and may preclude the owner from transferring or selling his interest in it.
It may be true as held by the High Court that the interest which is left in
the owner is a residuary interest which may be nothing more than a right
to hold this land in trust for the specific purpose specified by the
coloniser in the sanctioned layout plan. But the question is, does it entitle
the Corporation to claim that the land so specified should be transferred
to the authority free of cost. That is not made out from any provision in

( 10 ) WP-1986-2016
the Act or on any principle of law. The Corporation by virtue of the land
specified as open space may get a right as a custodian of public interest to
manage it in the interest of the society in general. But the right to
manage as a local body is not the same thing as to claim transfer of the
property to itself. The effect of transfer of the property is that the
transferor ceases to be owner of it and the ownership stands transferred
to the person in whose favour it is transferred. The resolution of the
Committee to transfer land in the colony for park and school was an
order for transfer without there being any sanction for the same in law.”
12. This Court, in the case of Vrajlal Jinabhai Patel Vs. State of
2
Maharashtra and Ors. , by considering the said judgment also allowed
the petition and directed to pay the compensation even for the land
acquired for public utility services like internal road, open spaces etc. In
3
the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhimashankar Sidramappa Chippa
also took similar view. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment in the
4
case of Shirdi Nagar Panchayat Vs. Kishor Sharad Borawake and Ors. by
considering the case of Pt. Chet Ram Vashist (supra) again reiterated the
principle that the land owner is entitled to get the compensation even
for the amenity space, open space etc. This Court again by elaborate
judgment considered the provisions of National Highways Act and Town
2 2003 (4) Bom C.R. 724
3 2009(4)Bom.CR.1
4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1214

( 11 ) WP-1986-2016
Planning Act and judgment in the case of Union of India Vs. Tarsem
Singh in Civil Appeal No.7064/2019 decided on 19/09/2019 by the
Hon’ble Apex Court. The judgment in the case of Pt. Chetram Vashist
(supra) and allowed the petition directing the authorities to pay the
compensation even for the land acquired which are required to be kept
as open space for public utility etc. The question was also considered
about the power of review with the competent authority etc. In the said
case, by way of corrigendum/clarification, the amount was deducted of
the compensation.
13. 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. Hence, the
following order:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The Respondent No.5 to pay the amount to the petitioners within
two months from today.

( 12 ) WP-1986-2016
(iii) If the amount is not paid within stipulated time, there shall be
costs of Rs.50,000/- on respondent No.5 for delayed payment. The
amount be paid with consequential benefits.
(iv) Rule made absolute in above terms.
[SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.] [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]
D.A.ETHAPE